ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Court Closures

Nick Smith: Whether he has any plans for further court closures.

Shailesh Vara: With the exception of recently published proposals on Abergavenny magistrates court and Caerphilly magistrates court, Bracknell magistrates court, Knutsford Crown court and Spalding magistrates court there are no plans for further court closures.

Nick Smith: How many courts closed since May 2010 have yet to be disposed of?

Shailesh Vara: I will come back to the hon. Gentleman with the precise figures.

Wayne David: As the Minister says, the Ministry of Justice is consulting on the closure of Caerphilly court in my constituency. The proposal from the MOJ is, frankly, back-of-the-envelope stuff. It will create enormous inconvenience for my constituents, and what is more, the local MP has not even been consulted. Is that acceptable?

Shailesh Vara: There has been a consultation of which the local MP is aware, and he, like anyone else, is entitled to give his view in that. We are constantly reviewing the courts estate to ensure that it meets operational needs. If any decisions are to be taken on the hon. Gentleman’s particular court, I hope that he will have been active in making his views heard.

Andy Slaughter: Yesterday, leading counsel told the High Court that the Lord Chancellor was causing
	“very serious harm to the…criminal justice system”
	and described his modus operandi as
	“a caricature of fairness: empty abuses, bluff and bully, divide and rule”.
	Beyond the closure of hundreds of courts and law firms and the destruction of legal aid, what else does the Lord Chancellor have in mind to undermine the rule of law, which his oath of office requires him to uphold?

Shailesh Vara: I have to say, it really is rich of the Opposition to talk in such terms. Here we have a party that is constantly criticising, yet has said that there will be no more money available in the unlikely event of it being in government. The Opposition really do need to sort out their act: they need to decide whether they are opposing for opposition’s sake, and, if they do want reforms, where the money will come from and how much.

Mr Speaker: Mr Graham Allen. Not here.

Prisons: Books

Philip Davies: What assessment he has made of the availability of books to prisoners.

Chris Grayling: Prisoners have essentially the same access to books as they did under the Labour Government. Prison libraries offer the full service offered to all of us by our local public libraries. There has been no specific policy change about books under this Government.

Philip Davies: I am grateful for that answer. The answer to a recent parliamentary question confirmed that £106 per prisoner is spent on libraries in prison, and from a recent freedom of information request I learned that in Leeds prison there are 10.5 books per prisoner, and in Wakefield prison 16.9. In contrast, in the libraries in my constituency for the general public, there is only about one book per person. On that basis, does the Secretary of State agree that, rather than prisoners being denied reading material, they are in fact far better served than the general public?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Those who have visited prison libraries will know that they are well stocked and well supported by high-quality staff. In most prison libraries one will find local projects helping prisoners to read, and I pay tribute to the work done by our prison librarians in tackling literacy problems in our prisons. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the fuss made about this issue has been wholly disproportionate and detached from the reality.

Fiona Mactaggart: But will the Secretary of State give Parliament a report on how many minutes each week each prisoner is able to visit a prison library? We regularly hear reports of lack of staff preventing prisoners from visiting prison libraries, and lack of space preventing toe by toe and similar reading programmes from being mounted.

Chris Grayling: The challenge we have in our prisons is not making space available in libraries for prisoners to visit but encouraging them to visit. That is why we are pursuing projects such as toe by toe and encouraging literacy programmes. To be frank, I wish more prisoners wanted to go to our libraries.

Caroline Dinenage: Will the Secretary of State carefully consider the report published this week from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which shows that improved literacy really supports rehabilitation and recommends that prison libraries should be open at weekends?

Chris Grayling: I will read that very carefully; it is a helpful contribution to how we address the literacy problem. I pay tribute to all the volunteers in the toe by toe programme, and to all the prisoners who can read and devote time to helping those who cannot. It is a path to the enhanced privileges available under our new regime. It is important that we take advantage of all the resources available to us to try to tackle the problem of a lack of literacy in our prisons.

Victims of Crime

Debbie Abrahams: What steps he plans to take to enforce the code of practice for victims of crime.

Michael Penning: May I, with your permission, Mr Speaker, pay my own personal tribute to Jim Dobbin, as it is my first opportunity at the Dispatch Box to do so? Jim was a personal friend and a colleague of all of us in the House. He would, I am sure, have been here at Justice questions because they are the sort of questions he would have been here for. He was a great man.
	I would have asked you, Mr Speaker, if I could group Questions 4 and 8, but I do not need to do so now, so I will just answer Question 4. The victims code is a statutory document that places clear duties on criminal justice agencies. We will monitor criminal justice agencies’ compliance with the victims code and my Department will report back in March 2015.

Debbie Abrahams: I thank the Minister for his very kind remarks and support him in what he said. Jim Dobbin was a neighbour and a long-standing friend of mine, and a thoroughly decent man who will be sorely missed.
	The murdered police constable Nicola Hughes was a constituent of mine. Her father Bryn has set up a charity in her name, particularly to support the families of murder victims. Will the Justice Secretary meet me and Bryn not only to hear about his experience but to discuss how families of murder victims can be better supported, particularly during the court process?

Michael Penning: I will be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady and her constituent. I have been very closely involved with this area for many years, not least because my constituent Billy Dove was murdered right outside my constituency office, and the family set up a charity straight after that. I have had the honour of chairing the victims panel. I will be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady and see the work that is being done brilliantly, I am sure, in her constituency.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I add my condolences to the family of the late Mr Jim Dobbin? He will be sorely missed.
	As the Minister will be aware, victims are often secondarily victimised by poor treatment within the justice system. It seems that whereas perpetrators have rights, victims have only codes and charters. What plans does he have to improve the treatment of victims of domestic violence, including those who suffer from coercive control, which I hope—I am still campaigning—will become subject to a law in the coming months?

Michael Penning: I pay tribute to the campaigning that the right hon. Gentleman has done over many years. I look forward to him knocking on my door in the next couple of weeks, I am sure, to come in and see me as the new Minister. We are doing everything we possibly can to reverse the way victims are treated, or perceived to be treated, within the criminal justice system. In the past couple of weeks I have used the analogy that we should look at the other end of the telescope and put victims first. That is why the victims panel was set up by the Secretary of State. I look forward to working with many of the victims groups so that we can reverse the feeling that they are being treated unjustly.

Barry Sheerman: May I press the Minister on the countless victims in towns and cities up and down our country who were forced into illegal sex—underage sex—and who were raped and pushed into child prostitution? Up and down the country, they have got no justice. Will this code help them? Will he join my appeal for an early, major debate in the House on that issue as soon as possible?

Michael Penning: I will be more than happy to respond to a debate on that very important subject, but it is above my pay grade to decide what the business in the House will be—that decision is for the business managers. The Backbench Business Committee has been enormously successful in this Parliament. I will be more than happy to respond to any debate proposed by the business managers.

Dan Jarvis: I welcome the victims Minister to his post. I know he will share the House’s concern about the number of young people coming forward who have been victims of horrendous abuse. It is very important that they get the support they need to ensure that justice is done. That includes victims being able to give evidence away from a court setting via a video link. There are only a handful of remote sites across the country, and the vast majority are located within court buildings. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has highlighted the traumatic impact that this can have on young victims. One mother described her daughter Iris’s court experience as being “like a second abuse”. Will the Government bring forward plans for more of these remote sites, and will the Minister do more to ensure that victims’ rights are protected, as we have proposed, with a victims law?

Michael Penning: I am obviously very aware of the NSPCC’s campaign, not least because, quite rightly, I am signing an awful lot of letters for colleagues at the moment. I have also, in these early days, already met the chief executive and chairman of the NSPCC. We are coming to the end of a pilot of remote video evidence and I am waiting for the evidence of how it has worked. I would like to roll it out as fast as possible, if the evidence shows—as I think it will—that it should be.

HMP Northumberland

Nick Brown: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of governance and security at HMP Northumberland.

Andrew Selous: The National Offender Management Service regularly carries out assessments of all aspects of security and delivery at HMP Northumberland and will continue to monitor the prison’s progress closely.

Nick Brown: May I caution the Minister against reading out what the civil service put in front of him as if that were a satisfactory answer to the question? The situation at the prison has been described by work force representatives as a “powder keg”. The issue is the dramatic reduction in staffing and the increase in the number of prisoners. I urge the Minister to look at the situation and satisfy himself that the prison is safe, because all the advice that the region’s MPs are receiving is that it is not.

Andrew Selous: I think I can give the right hon. Gentleman some good news. Like all prisons, HMP Northumberland is subject to performance targets and it is currently at level 3, the second highest level. Twelve new recruits have just joined the prison, 13 more are due to start next Monday and 22 reserve staff can be called up to make up any shortfall, so I do not recognise the description given by the right hon. Gentleman.

Alan Beith: Does the Minister recognise that adequate staff numbers are essential not only to safety but to rehabilitation, and that I expressed concerns to his predecessor that the public sector bid and the Sodexo bid, which was successful, both involved a significant reduction in staff numbers?

Andrew Selous: I absolutely recognise what the Chair of the Justice Committee says. As I have just said, we are increasing staff numbers at the prison: 13 more recruits are due to start next week, 12 have already joined and there are 22 reserve staff available. The prison will also have a further inspection next week, so we are keeping these matters closely under review. As I have said, more staff are joining.

Ian Lucas: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I say in all courtesy to the hon. Gentleman that HMP Northumberland is a long way from Wrexham. It may be that the hon. Gentleman has a constituent who is incarcerated there and if he can solemnly assure the House that that is the case, I shall be happy to hear him; otherwise, he might prefer to wait for another question.

Ian Lucas: indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: We will leave it there for now, but the hon. Gentleman will be heard. I feel sure of that—he always is.

Guy Opperman: I have constituents in HMP Northumberland and I visited the prison this summer. May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? When I met the management and individual prison officers this summer, I was impressed by their hard work, dedication and commitment to the prison. Does the Minister agree that we should get behind them and not endlessly snipe at the prison and its staff?

Andrew Selous: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing a bit of balance to our discussions on HMP Northumberland. I thank him for what he has said. Of course, there are some pressures in our prisons, but prison officers are doing magnificent work every day. Frankly, it is time that was recognised and celebrated.

Criminal Convictions

Graham Jones: What estimate he has made of the number of offenders given a non-custodial sentence in the past three years who had more than 100 previous convictions.

Chris Grayling: There are far too many people in that situation. I am clear that there must be tough penalties for serious or repeat offences. More people are going to prison and for longer under this Government. The basis of the hon. Gentleman’s question is precisely why I am taking steps in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill to ensure that we toughen up the system of cautions so that they are no longer available for serious or repeat crimes. We have also taken steps to ensure that all community penalties contain a punitive element.

Graham Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but I am sure that Members throughout the House and the public outside will be deeply concerned that in 2013 more than 1,000 people were given a non-custodial sentence despite having 100 previous convictions, while 30,000 offenders were given a non-custodial sentence despite having committed 30 or more previous offences. Should not more consideration be given to residents, particularly in deprived neighbourhoods, who have to put up with persistent and repeat offenders in their communities?

Chris Grayling: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why we have brought forward a number of the measures in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which is now in the other place. I hope that it will reach the statute book by the end of the year, and that it will deliver much-needed change.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Secretary of State agree that sustained and meaningful employment is very important in reducing high reoffending rates?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely agree, which is why I think that a combination of the efforts that this Government are putting into that—the work being done to increase the number of employment opportunities within prisons; the work being done by the Work programme to help the long-term unemployed, particularly those who have been offenders; and, indeed, this Government’s great success in creating a fast-improving labour market—are all contributing to tackling the problem to which he rightly refers.

Treason

Philip Hollobone: Whether the offence of treason is available for use by prosecuting authorities against UK citizens participating in jihad in the middle east.

Simon Hughes: The coalition Government take very seriously the potential threat posed by a small number of British citizens who have travelled abroad and participated in conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Those who participate in foreign conflicts may be prosecuted for offences such as terrorism under the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006, murder or conspiracy to commit murder, and offences under the International Criminal Court Act 2001 for breaches of international humanitarian law. It is of course the case that treason remains on the statute book, although the last prosecution was in 1945.

Philip Hollobone: ISIS, al-Qaeda and other groups are sworn enemies of our country and hate everything we stand for, and British citizens who go abroad to take part in jihad—or holy war—are giving aid and comfort to the Queen’s enemies. The British public want to see some exemplary prosecutions for treason so that the seriousness of this international terrorist activity can be fully and properly recognised.

Simon Hughes: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. All Ministers in all Departments are very clear both that we need to use effectively the powers we already have and that we have to take new powers, which have been announced by the Prime Minister, to fill any potential gaps in the protections we have. The powers will be targeted, proportionate and effective, and they will ensure that we meet our commitment to international law and human rights.
	As a Liberal Democrat Minister, may I make it absolutely clear on behalf of all the team in the Ministry of Justice that we as a Government will take all the measures necessary to keep our country safe? We have already announced that there will be new powers to take passports from people temporarily while investigations are made to prevent them from travelling to places such as Syria and Iraq.

Julian Huppert: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Law Commission’s 10th programme for law reform, which states that the offence of treason should be looked at again because it is outdated and needs improvement? It covers many offences that we would not now consider to be offences, and it is not actually useful law. Will he get his team to look at that?

Simon Hughes: As I said, the offence of treason has not been used since 1945. It dates from a much earlier statute. The Law Commission has not looked at it recently, but there is no reason why it should not come forward with a proposal to do so. On this issue, the Government are absolutely focused on making sure that people who go abroad and either commit serious offences abroad or when they come back to this country are prosecuted now and effectively. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that we need to make sure that we have the full panoply of powers while respecting our international obligations, and that there are plenty of such powers without using the offence of treason.

Victims of Crime

Stella Creasy: What steps he plans to take to enforce the code of practice for victims of crime.

Michael Penning: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will not read out the answer I read out earlier when, as is understandable, the hon. Lady was not in her place. I just reiterate that the victims code is a statutory document that places clear duties on criminal justice agencies. The Department will report to the Criminal Justice Board in March 2015. As I said to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), I will keep an enormously close eye on how this is being done, and if we need more powers we will take them. We intend to spend £100 million, which includes a lot of money coming from the perpetrators of such crimes, across all Departments to help victims.

Stella Creasy: On 14 January, the Minister’s colleagues in the Foreign Office wrote to me extolling the virtues of having signed the EU directive that means the families of victims of crimes that happen in Europe should expect to be able to enjoy the same rights as they would in their home countries, and on 7 April they wrote to tell me that it is the Minister’s responsibility to make that happen. Will he therefore meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) and the families involved in the Tyrell Matthews-Burton case? The victim’s family and the witnesses have all been told that they have to raise the funds themselves to be able to go over to Malia to give evidence in this terrible murder trial. I am sure that he would agree that the victim’s voice not being heard is not what we would expect to see at home.

Michael Penning: Of course, whether the new Minister or not, I will be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady and her constituents, and the other hon. Lady’s constituents—I think that is the sort of role I should be playing—and look at the case closely, which I have not yet had an opportunity to do.

Mr Speaker: I think that the hon. Lady was referring to an hon. Gentleman, if memory serves me correctly. I would not want the Minister to suffer from gender confusion.

David Mowat: Previous grooming trials have been characterised by intimidatory and vicious cross-examination by defence barristers, and often by multiple defence barristers. Will the Minister assure us that steps are being taken to stop that happening?

Michael Penning: Although I cannot interfere in the role of barristers in the courts, we are looking at the matter very closely and have piloted the use of video conferencing so that evidence can be given remotely or from behind a screen. It is vital that victims have the confidence to become witnesses, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that they have the support they need to do so.

Bill Esterson: Colin McGinty was murdered almost 14 years ago. His parents recently gave a victim statement remotely, but the chair of the parole panel forgot to turn off his microphone and they overheard him say that their views would be disregarded. No doubt the Justice Secretary is explaining what happened. They have received an apology for what happened, which was incredibly distressing, as Members will understand. Can the Minister confirm that the Justice
	Secretary’s written advice is that victim statements are an important part of rehabilitation because of their role in the demonstration of empathy and remorse by offenders, and will he ensure that that is put clearly to the Parole Board and to parole panels?

Michael Penning: I have not yet had an opportunity to look at the full details of the case the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I know that there is an ongoing investigation to find out how it happened and to ensure that it does not happen again. I can only emphasise, as a human being, that it must have been horrible to hear that being said in the background. We must ensure that it does not happen again. The Secretary of State met the group only last week to discuss the matter.

Insurance Fraud

Stephen Mosley: What steps his Department has taken to prevent insurance fraud.

Shailesh Vara: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to tackling insurance fraud. We are banning lawyers from offering inducements in personal injury claims and are legislating to penalise fundamentally dishonest claimants. We are also consulting on a requirement for lawyers to undertake previous claims checks on whiplash claimants, which will combat fraud at source.

Stephen Mosley: It is estimated that insurance fraud and exaggerated claims cost some £2.1 billion last year, with motor insurance alone costing about £811 million. Ultimately, it is not the insurance companies that pay out, but the consumers, who pay for it through higher insurance bills. What further measures is my hon. Friend taking to tackle the compensation culture in this country?

Shailesh Vara: The compensation culture to which my hon. Friend refers means that honest drivers are having to pay higher premiums because of abuses, especially in whiplash claims. That is why the Government have put in place measures to deter unnecessary speculative and exaggerated claims, while ensuring that genuine claimants can come forward and have proper redress. In the first phase of our measures, which will start next month, there will be fixed costs of £180 for medical reports, which in the past had been as high as £700.

Jim Shannon: There have been many examples across the whole United Kingdom of scams being carried out by a number of individuals with different insurance companies. Is it not time that insurance companies exchanged ideas and ensured that they are forensically competent in dealing with fraud?

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. That exchange of ideas is happening, and we are encouraging it to happen more.

Reoffending

Heidi Alexander: What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.

Chris Grayling: Overall reoffending rates have barely changed over the past decade. Under our transforming rehabilitation reforms, we will draw on the best services from across the public, private and voluntary sectors in order to deliver better rehabilitation support to more offenders, reduce the number of potential victims and make our communities safer. For the first time in recent history, virtually every offender released from custody will receive statutory supervision, rehabilitation and mentoring support in the community.

Heidi Alexander: A4e recently pulled out of a £17 million contract to deliver education and training in London prisons. It has been suggested that one reason for that is staff shortages so severe that there are not enough officers to escort prisoners to classes. If prisoners who want to learn cannot even get to the classroom, what does that say about the Government’s so-called rehabilitation revolution?

Chris Grayling: All I can tell the House is that the scenario painted by the hon. Lady is completely untrue.

David Burrowes: May I encourage the Justice Secretary to look at innovative ways of tackling re-offending? My neighbouring constituency in Barnet is looking at using GPS monitoring in new ways that go beyond traditional electronic monitoring and the Serco-G4S expensive model, and into ways that tackle the behaviour of some of the most prolific offenders. It is having great results.

Chris Grayling: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The arrival of GPS tags in this country provides a great opportunity for the criminal justice system in a variety of different ways. We will have first access to that technology in a form that is sufficiently robust to be used in courts if necessary later this year, and I think it has great potential.

Jenny Chapman: The right hon. Gentleman needs to know that the cost of reoffending is now the same as holding the London Olympics every single year. There is now more overcrowding, less education, and more violence in our prisons than ever before. Why will he not admit that the only intervention his Government have made in the past four and half years that has had the effect of reducing reoffending statistics is the one when he decided to change the way he would calculate those statistics?

Chris Grayling: I am afraid I have to correct the hon. Lady. At the moment our prison system is at its least overcrowded for 10 years, and the number of prisoners going through education is set to increase significantly this year.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Secretary of State say what action his Department is taking to reduce the trend in shop theft, particularly where that might fuel a drug or substance habit?

Chris Grayling: That is one reason why I think it is important that we address the caution system, because it has been possible for somebody who commits an act such as shop theft simply to receive a caution again and
	again. Those people must come to court to be dealt with properly by our magistrates, and that is why the measures in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill are so important.

Transforming Rehabilitation Programme

Caroline Lucas: What progress his Department has made on the transforming rehabilitation programme.

Chris Grayling: Transition to the new probation structures took place on 1 June, and bids to run community rehabilitation companies were received at the end of June. More than half the bidders include a voluntary, mutual or social enterprise organisation, and mutuals continue to feature strongly. The contract winners for each CRC will be announced by the end of 2014, as planned.

Caroline Lucas: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is deeply worrying that a recent survey of probation workers shows that more than 90% disagree with the view that the changes will provide value for money for the taxpayer, or improve service provision for users—they talk about spiralling work loads, stress, and dysfunctional IT? When will he stop ignoring the experts and admit that the best option to reduce reoffending and protect public safety would be to cancel the probation sell-off and re-integrate the two parts of the service at the earliest opportunity?

Chris Grayling: I take greater comfort from the fact that 90% of probation officers chose not to respond to their union’s survey and are getting on with the job, the excellent work they do on a day-by-day basis, and their good work to help the new systems bed in.

John McDonnell: I find the Secretary of State’s complacency extremely worrying. Two hundred probation officers turned up last week to lobby their MPs, all of them consistently reporting that the system is not working. The Secretary of State refused to undertake pilot schemes in advance of these reforms, but he did enact what he described as assessments called test gates. There have been three of those. The fourth was meant to start on 1 June but I believe it has not started yet. Will he publish all the information from the test gates, so that we can see what they have reported regarding the implementation of the reforms?

Chris Grayling: These reforms are going exactly according to plan and no test gate was due to start in June. We are on time and the teams on the ground are making good progress. I and my colleagues have visited the trust’s successor organisations, and members of my team are going out to hear what is happening on the ground. This is a nine-month process of delivering change in the public sector, before we reach the point of a change of ownership. We are trying to ensure that the new system is bedded in well, and so far I am happy with the progress being made. There is, of course, still work to be done, but good progress is being made.

Sadiq Khan: As usual, the Justice Secretary has his head in the sand. He was warned against his plans to privatise the probation service, but he ignored those warnings. Preferred bidders were supposed to be announced this week, but now he tells us it will be
	before the end of the year. There were supposed to be dozens and dozens of private companies, charities and voluntary groups bidding for the contracts, but there are not—in some areas, only one company is bidding for a contract. Staff—both those who respond to surveys and those who do not—are complaining of chaos at the probation service. Morale is at a record low and experienced and dedicated staff are leaving. Given that, are there any circumstances in which he would put a stop to the botched privatisation of the probation service?

Chris Grayling: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is plain wrong. He needs to stop listening to the trade unions; of course the trade unions still think this is a bad idea, but in reality our reforms are bedding in well and we will deliver the changes necessary to provide support and supervision to people who get none at the moment. The Labour party has no answers about how it would deliver that.
	On competition, the right hon. Gentleman’s facts are plain wrong. I think we have 86 bids, with an average of four bidders in each area and a good mix of organisations from the public, private and voluntary sectors,. I am completely confident that we will shortly deliver a really innovative approach to rehabilitation, despite the blind opposition of the Labour party.

Courts Rebuilding Programme

Bridget Phillipson: What progress his Department has made on its courts rebuilding programme.

Shailesh Vara: Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service continues to keep the use of its estate under review to ensure that it meets operational requirements.

Bridget Phillipson: Last November, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) met the Minister to press the case for the much-promised rebuilding of Sunderland’s court complex, but unfortunately, since then, nothing has happened. Will he now join us, visit Sunderland and see the state of the existing court buildings and the impact these new courts could have in the regeneration of the city centre?

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Lady is right to refer to our meeting about this matter and will be aware that in March we announced a court reform programme to ensure that the courts and tribunals of this country met the expectations of the public in the 21st century. Any decisions about the site in Farringdon row in Sunderland will be taken in the context of that reform programme. Currently, no decisions have been taken about the site.

Ian Lucas: Unless the Ministry of Justice commits capital funding to Wrexham magistrates court, it will be in the peculiar position of having no custody facilities. Will the Minister commit capital funding to construct cells at the court?

Shailesh Vara: As I just said, a reform programme has been announced. It will take a comprehensive view and all matters will be considered.

Court Estates Reform

Richard Graham: What plans he has for the completion of the court estates reform programme.

Shailesh Vara: The court estate reform programme has been important in improving efficiency through the closure of poor quality and underused court buildings. Through the programme, 140 courts have closed and these closures are expected to generate estimated savings of £152 million. The last court in the programme, Alton magistrates court, closed last week on 5 September 2014.

Richard Graham: The Minister will know that our courts in Gloucester are barely fit for purpose. Land was bought for new courts by the previous Government, but they diverted the funds elsewhere. Will he confirm that the site will be marketed as soon as possible to help city regeneration, that the successful bidder for HMP Gloucester will be announced soon and that a new justice centre in the city centre will be considered positively for all courts and tribunals once the justice review is finished?

Shailesh Vara: First, may I commend my hon. Friend for the diligence and conscientiousness with which he has pursued the interests of his constituents? I fully appreciate the circumstances of the courts in Gloucester and am mindful of the prison’s closure and the position of the car park. As I have said, a court reform programme was announced in March and any decisions will be taken as part of that programme.

Restorative Justice

Fiona Bruce: What progress his Department has made on increasing the provision of restorative justice programmes for offenders.

Simon Hughes: Restorative justice can play an important role in empowering victims by giving them a voice and enabling them to explain the real impact of the crime and hold offenders to account. There is a clear link between the use of restorative justice and a reduction in the frequency of offending. The coalition Government have committed almost £30 million for restorative justice services for the three years up to next year, with most of this distributed through the police and crime commissioners as part of our broader approach to funding victims’ services.

Fiona Bruce: The Cheshire police and crime commissioner recently made a welcome grant to the Prison Fellowship for its restorative justice programme, the Sycamore Tree project. This is the first PCC funding in the country for this project, which the Prison Fellowship is seeking to expand but is finding difficult to access owing to data provision requirements for funding. Will the Minister join me in recognising the excellent work going on and meet me and the Prison Fellowship to discuss how PCC funding can be accessed by it across the country?

Simon Hughes: Of course I will meet the hon. Lady who I know has been a strong advocate for the work of the Prison Fellowship and the Sycamore Tree project. As I understand it, funding for public sector prisons amounts to £917,000 over three years. I am sorry about the data problem, but I am sure we can help with that. The Government are clear, however, that our £30 million pot is money raised from offenders to support the victims of crime. It cannot go to prisons or prisoners; it is for activities outside the prisons to make sure that people do not reoffend.

Reoffending

Jesse Norman: What assessment he has made of the potential merits of joint working between probation trusts and police forces to reduce reoffending.

Michael Penning: I think we are all agreed that to tackle reoffending to protect the public, it is critical for the national probation service and community rehabilitation companies to work very closely with our local police forces.

Jesse Norman: Operation Castlemain is a police-led initiative to tackle street drinking in Hereford. Local probation officers and other agencies join police on the streets in areas where street drinkers are known to congregate. The result is a better environment for the public, closer working relations between the police and probation service and a higher profile for probation with people at risk of offending. Will the Minister join me in praising this excellent example of joint working?

Michael Penning: I will praise the work going on in my hon. Friend’s constituency and work that is going on around the country. Joint working and joint partnerships are important. I would also like to pay to tribute to street pastors who do a fantastic job in constituencies, including my own.

Open Prisons

Andrew Griffiths: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of open prisons.

Andrew Selous: Open prisons are subject to inspection by Her Majesty’s inspectorate to measure performance in four key areas: resettlement, purposeful activity, safety and respect. Alongside this, the Ministry of Justice operates an internal audit assurance mechanism. Open prisons are subject to audit in the same way as the rest of the prison estate and are awarded a rating based on assurance against national baselines. HMIP and internal audit outcomes are combined with scores from other performance measures to give an overall performance rating on the prison rating system. All open prisons are currently rated as 4, which is exceptional, or 3, meeting targets.

Andrew Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that response, but Sudbury prison is neither effective nor meeting its targets. The local newspaper recently ran a story with
	the mugshots of 24 prisoners who were still on the run from Sudbury prison. We recently had four prisoners absconding in five days and two have disappeared in the last month. My constituents are concerned for their safety. This is not working; what is the Minister going to do about it?

Andrew Selous: I recognise my hon. Friend’s concern, but let me give him some helpful facts. The list of 24 Sudbury prisoners unlawfully at large that was recently published by Derbyshire police includes cases from 1992 onwards, with half occurring before 2006. Absconds have reduced by 80% in the last 10 years, and this Government have recently made significant changes to the way prisoners are assessed for eligibility for open prisons and to receive relief on temporary licence.

Kevin Brennan: Following representations from me and others to the Minister’s predecessor, I welcome the fact that the Government reversed their decision on having steel-strung guitars for prisoners in prison cells. Will he update us on how the reversal of that policy is going? Have there been any problems, and does he recognise the value of music as a rehabilitative force in our prisons?

Andrew Selous: I think that one of the first letters I received after my appointment was from the hon. Gentleman about this issue. I was pleased that we were able to resolve it. As far as I am aware, there have been no issues and no difficulties. I believe the new policy is settling down well.

Prisons: Violence

Gordon Henderson: What steps he is taking to reduce the level of violence in prisons.

Andrew Selous: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General visited Swaleside, one of the prisons in my hon. Friend’s constituency, on 2 May this year, and spoke to prison staff there. As a new Minister, I have been visiting as many prisons as possible, and I look forward to visiting a prison in my hon. Friend’s constituency in due course.

Gordon Henderson: I welcome my hon. Friend’s reply, but does he accept that the Prison Service is undergoing a great many changes, and that, as a result, the three prisons in my constituency face a number of challenges? I am delighted that he has agreed to visit my constituency, and I hope that he will be able to talk to the prison officers who have been affected by the changes and tasked with implementing them.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I have visited prisons on a very regular basis, and have observed that, while they are certainly subject to some pressures, excellent work is being done. I talk to prison officers regularly as well, and I look forward to talking to those in his constituency.

Probation Service

Emma Lewell-Buck: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the probation service.

Andrew Selous: We are monitoring the performance of the probation service closely as we implement our reforms.

Emma Lewell-Buck: The probation service has warned of the disruptive effect of splitting up the probation system, and is already being proved correct. Dedicated officers in Shields tell me that long-standing and trusting relationships with clients have been cut short, which has made those individuals more difficult to engage, and, worse, more likely to reoffend. Why have the Government ignored those warnings?

Andrew Selous: Government Members are not happy with the very high reoffending rates that we have had for decades, and we are determined to do better. We shall be introducing supervision for prisoners who have been sentenced to less than one year, and we believe that our reforms will be highly successful. We are ambitious to end the cycle of reoffending that has blighted our communities for far too long, and we are doing something about it.

Topical Questions

David Hanson: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Chris Grayling: Given all the questions that have been asked, I think it would be helpful for me to update the House properly on the progress of our rehabilitation reforms.
	On 1 June we established new structures in the probation service for a period of shadow running and testing. Twenty-one community rehabilitation companies are now managing low and medium-risk offenders, initially in the public sector, prior to the award of contracts later in the year. The new national probation service has also been established, to advise the courts, manage high-risk offenders and take enforcement actions. Those functions will remain in the public sector. I am grateful to staff for their hard work as the changes bed in.
	In parallel, we are making good progress with the competition for ownership of the community rehabilitation companies. Strong competition remains in all regions, with more than 80 bids received and an average of four bidders for each area. More than half the bidders include a voluntary, mutual or social enterprise organisation, and mutuals continue to feature strongly. All bidders have experience of working with offenders.
	Nearly 1,000 organisations have registered as potential partners in the wider supply chain, including more than 700 listed as voluntary, community or social enterprise organisations. We remain on track to sign contracts with successful bidders by the end of the year.

David Hanson: There have been some strong reports recently from the chief inspector of prisons. For example, Glen Parva has been described as “unsafe”, Wormwood Scrubs as “filthy and unsafe”, and Doncaster as a “prison in decline”. I know from my experience as
	prisons Minister that it is never easy, but has the Secretary of State any belief in his ownership of the causes of those problems?

Chris Grayling: It is, of course, unfortunate that press coverage is always of the bad reports. Today we saw an excellent report from Chelmsford, and two weeks ago we saw an excellent report from Parc youth offender institution. This year the chief inspector has rightly been looking at prisons in which there have been challenges in the past, but, as the right hon. Gentleman will know if he visits prisons around the estate, a great deal of very good work is being done by our teams. They are undergoing a process of change caused by budget pressures, but they are doing a first-rate job. For every report that questions performance in one prison, there are many others that show that a first-rate job is being done—as he himself will remember.

Mr Speaker: Mr David Davis. Not here.

Philip Davies: The Secretary of State has long argued that we should increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to 12 months for one offence. I hope that he can now clear up some confusion on the issue, because that provision was a manifesto commitment which was then abolished under the Secretary of State’s disastrous predecessor. My amendment proposing the introduction of the new sentencing power was rejected by the Government as recently as June, but the Prime Minister has now told the Magistrates Association at a reception that it will happen before the next election. Can we clear up the question of where we actually are, and can we crack on with doing something that would save money and would also be incredibly popular?

Michael Penning: I love doing things that are enormously popular and I also like doing things that are right. Magistrates’ sentencing powers are being reviewed and I will be able to come back to the House at its very early convenience, I hope, with some ideas.

Sadiq Khan: The Secretary of State has previously said, and he said it again today, how proud he is of his prison reforms. The Ministry of Justice’s own figures show that suicides are up 69% in a year. More people died in prison last year than ever before. Self-harm is up 27% since 2010. Serious assaults are up 30%. The riot squad has been called out 72% more times than it was in 2010 and one in five prisons are now rated as “of concern”, double the figure 12 months earlier. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that four reports by the chief inspector of prisons have been pretty damning; the reports on Glen Parva, Doncaster, Isis and Wormwood Scrubs. What will it take for the Secretary of State to accept that we are in the midst of a prison crisis?

Chris Grayling: As always, the right hon. Gentleman paints a very partial view of what is going on in our prisons. Our prisons are less overcrowded than they have been at any point since 2001. They are less violent than they were under the last Government. More work is being done in our prisons today than under the last Government. The number of prisoners going through education is rising. Today we have an excellent report
	on Chelmsford prison, which I visited last week. Two weeks ago, we had an excellent report on Parc prison in south Wales.
	There are staff shortages in parts of our prison system but across the prison system we have a dedicated staff working hard and doing the right job. I take very seriously the issue of suicide in our prisons. We saw a rise in numbers earlier in the year. We saw a fall in numbers across the summer. We may see a rise or a fall in future. These things are difficult to track. We work very hard to tackle what is a real problem.

Sadiq Khan: This is classic, head-in-the-sand syndrome.
	“The Government cannot pretend any longer that there is no crisis in our prisons.
	Even their own backbenchers say the system is shambolic.
	Mr Grayling’s priorities, regardless of his budget, must be the security of the public and prison officers—and the welfare of inmates.
	His department’s failing on all three.”
	Those are not my words. They are from an editorial in The Sun. The House should bear in mind that the Secretary of State was appointed by the Prime Minister to appeal to the red tops. What has gone wrong?

Chris Grayling: I will think that I have a problem in our prisons when I am forced through bad planning, as the last Government were, to release tens of thousands of prisoners weeks early to commit crimes that they should not have committed. I will know that I have a problem when I have to hire thousands of police cells when we do not have enough space in our prisons. The truth is that we have space in our prisons. They are less overcrowded. We are increasing education. They are less violent than they were under the last Government. We face challenges given budget pressures but we are doing a much better job than they did.

Martin Vickers: It is an intolerable burden on British taxpayers that they should be funding the cost of so many foreign prisoners. Can the Secretary of State inform us what action is being taken to reduce the number and return more of them to their home country?

Andrew Selous: I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the issue. Reducing the foreign national offender population is a top priority for the Government. Last year, we removed 5,097 foreign national offenders compared with 4,072 in 2012-13 and 4,539 in 2011-12. Whereas this Government have begun to reduce the foreign national population in prison, the number of foreign nationals in our prisons under the last Government more than doubled.

Mr Speaker: Michael Connarty. Not here.

John Mann: Has the Secretary of State given specific advice to prisons, probation services and magistrates about historic sex abuse? If so, what is it?

Chris Grayling: No. It is for the courts to pass sentences. It is for our prisons and probation service to deal with the matter. The national probation service will focus on
	the most dangerous sex offenders. Our prisons are managing increasing numbers of historic and current sex offenders. We now have a number of prisons that specialise in that and are doing excellent work with those offenders. Let us hope that those numbers do not continue to rise, but if they do we will be ready to tackle that problem.

Lorely Burt: As a former prison assistant governor, I take a great interest in the rehabilitation of ex-offenders, so I am very proud of my constituent, Jason Turner, a former drug addict who is today launching his film, “Making your past pay.” He turned his life around after 22 years of crime and addiction, and the film features Benjamin Zephaniah aiming to show offenders how they can turn their lives around. Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent Jason that offenders seeking to rehabilitate should never allow themselves to be defined by their past?

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is rightly proud of her constituent, and the objective of the Ministry of Justice is to make sure that people do turn their lives around, as her constituent has done. All credit to him, and we believe our transforming rehabilitation reforms will do that for many more people.

Kate Green: There have been reports that a number of offenders remain unallocated to supervising officers following the division of the probation service into probation and community rehabilitation companies, with obvious concerns for public safety. The Secretary of State has said that he will only proceed with the transforming rehabilitation programme if he is confident it is safe to do so. Will he now undertake to publish the findings of the test gates, including the upcoming test gate 4, so that the public can have that reassurance?

Chris Grayling: I have expressly asked the chief inspector of probation to come to my office and talk to me if, in the course of the work he and his team do, he identifies any part of the reforms that are jeopardising public safety. He has not done so.

Greg Mulholland: The Ministry of Justice’s own figures show that more than half of the parties in family courts are now unrepresented by a solicitor. There are concerns from the legal sector that this means that people are not getting fair hearings, and actually hearings seem to be taking longer. What plans has the Department got to review this?

Simon Hughes: Before the legal aid reforms, one party did not have legal representation in about two thirds of private law cases. It is common for the courts to deal with people who represent themselves. The Department is very watchful of what is happening, but we have already supported organisations such as Citizens Advice and Advicenow to produce more guides. There is also support for the personal support unit, and there is new material for litigants in person, and new leaflets and online advice and guidance, as well as judicial support and advice. We expect to make further announcements of support to deal with this matter in the very near future.

Paul Flynn: The mentally ill constitute a large group of those who have taken their lives in prisons—in the most recent year, there has been the highest number since 2007. Much of this has been traced by commentators to the harsher policies introduced by the current Secretary of State. Does he not feel any shame that mentally ill people are paying this terrible price for the Government’s crude populism?

Chris Grayling: Let us be clear first of all: any suicide in our prisons is one too many, and I and my colleagues, and the team in the National Offender Management Service, take these issues very seriously indeed. We are working very hard to address the issues as to why people take their lives. As I said, we saw an increase earlier in the year and a fall during the summer. I hope we will continue to see a fall, but we might see an increase; these things do not follow a pattern. The reality is that we have looked at all the cases and there is no common pattern to them, but I absolutely refute any suggestion that we are disinterested in this or want to create an environment that allows this to happen. Indeed, I have said publicly that I regard dealing with issues of mental health in prisons as the next reform that this Government should embark on.

Duncan Hames: In his recent written statement on the Office of the Public Guardian, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), alludes to a future segmented supervision model for deputies. Will he act to reduce the number of people forced to pay through their estate for expensive solicitors to act as deputies, and find them better value alternatives instead?

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his continuing interest in this matter, and I hope that he has found the response to the consultation helpful. It makes it absolutely clear that we want to be much more hands-on in terms of managing the role of deputies who are responsible for other people’s estates, to reduce the number of allegations of abuse and misuse of funds and to ensure that vulnerable people are better protected by the courts. I also hope he will have noticed that I have ensured that if anyone wants to make a decision about who should manage any future decisions relating to life or death, that decision will have to be made in person with someone there to witness it, so that there can be no risk of anyone failing to understand the decision they are making.

Stella Creasy: I very much welcome the decision by the victims Minister to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) and the families of Tyrell Matthews-Burton. May I make so bold as to ask that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who has responsibility for courts and legal aid, should join us at that meeting? He is already aware of the case, having recently written to me to confirm that one of the gentlemen charged with taking part in the fight in which Tyrell was killed was convicted of carrying a knife just five days before the event but had his sentence suspended so that he could go on holiday.

Michael Penning: I think the hon. Lady might be pushing it a bit with our diary secretaries in trying to do that. If she wants a speedy meeting with me, I suggest that we have that meeting. I will get a full briefing from my colleagues and I will know exactly what is going on.

David Nuttall: Further to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), will the Lord Chancellor join me on a visit to Bury and Rochdale magistrates court so that he can see for himself the excellent work that the magistrates are doing and see that the capacity exists for their sentencing powers to be increased from six months to 12 months?

Chris Grayling: I would be delighted to do so.

Nick Brown: What colour is the probation service change programme on the Cabinet Office evaluation scale?

Simon Hughes: The colour is green; we are proceeding successfully with an issue that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues never dealt with. A third of those who have community orders, and a third of those with long sentences, reoffend within a year, but the figure is nearly six out of 10 for those on short sentences. We are going to deal with that issue now.

Philip Hollobone: How many foreign national offenders are there in our prisons, and what concrete steps are being taken to send them back to secure custody in their own countries?

Andrew Selous: We have 10,834 foreign national offenders in our prisons. We have signed prisoner transfer agreements with the European Union, Albania and Nigeria and, as I said in an earlier answer, we removed 5,097 foreign national offenders last year. I can assure my hon. Friend that this is a priority for me, as it is for him.

Andrew McDonald: The number of prison suicides has risen by 50% since the coalition came to power. The Secretary of State sits on his hands
	and simply says that the numbers go up and down; he has no explanation for that. However, his own chief inspector of prisons says that this is down to overcrowding. Is he wrong?

Chris Grayling: We have looked carefully at this matter, as have the ombudsman and a number of others. There is no common pattern to the suicides.

Guy Opperman: May I ask the victims Minister to meet me and to review the handling and sentencing of repeat antisocial behaviour offenders? In my constituency, there are two cases of people on year-long ASBOs, but the victims feel that the sentencing has been carried out solely on the basis of the most recent offence rather than the pattern of behaviour.

Michael Penning: As well as being the victims Minister, I am also the police and criminal justice Minister. I am sure, given that portfolio, that my hon. Friend and I will have a very good meeting.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, Julie Hilling.

Julie Hilling: The Joint Committee on Human Rights has reported that the Government do not appear to have carried out an equality impact assessment of secure colleges. Many experts, and many in this House, are concerned about the impact of those colleges on girls and young children. Why has no impact assessment been carried out and what is the Minister going to do about it?

Andrew Selous: Any introduction of under-15s and girls to those colleges would be carefully phased; they would not be placed in such a college from its opening. At the moment, seven out of 10 young offenders reoffend within a year. They cost on average £100,000 and sometimes up to £200,000. The hon. Lady will know very well that details of assessments have generally not been released by any Government.

Afghanistan

Philip Hammond: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Afghanistan. First, I want to pay tribute to the courage and commitment of our armed forces in Afghanistan, where 453 UK service personnel have been killed serving our country and many hundreds more have sustained life-changing injuries. At the NATO summit in Wales last week, the international security assistance force—ISAF—nations joined together in honouring the sacrifice made by those killed or injured during the mission in Afghanistan. Our servicemen and women continue to risk their lives every day, even at this late stage in combat operations. Just a few weeks ago, on 5 August, an attack at the national defence university outside Kabul cost the life of US army Major General Harold Greene and injured many more, including two UK personnel. I know I speak for everyone in this House when I say that our thoughts go out to the general’s friends, family and colleagues, and to all those who were wounded.
	It is a testament to the bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces that Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for international terrorists of the kind who spawned the 9/11 attacks, and that it now has the tools to maintain its own security. Our troops have helped build the Afghan national security forces from scratch to a strength of approximately 350,000 personnel, capable of battling the insurgency without our help and of sustaining our progress in eliminating the terrorist threat to the UK that once existed in Afghanistan. Afghan forces are now leading 99% of combat operations across Afghanistan and proving increasingly effective. Nowhere is that clearer than in the successful security operations to protect both rounds of presidential elections in April and June. With minimal support from ISAF, they prevented insurgents not just from significantly disrupting the elections, but from prosecuting a single high-profile attack on either polling day.
	Significant challenges remain, and it is clear the insurgency will continue to test Afghan forces, particularly in Helmand, but when the Taliban had some short-term success earlier this year, capturing isolated checkpoints and rural areas in northern Helmand, the Afghan national security forces quickly regrouped, reinforced the area and reclaimed much of the lost ground. To maintain this progress, the ANSF needs our sustained support—and they will get it; at the NATO summit, international partners reaffirmed their financial commitment to the ANSF post-2014. At the Chicago summit in 2012, the UK committed £70 million per annum to this crucial activity. In Wales last week, we confirmed that we will continue to fund the ANSF at this level for at least the next three years.
	As part of the evolution of our support for security in Afghanistan, we are continuing to draw down our troops. We now have only about 4,000 personnel in theatre, and have redeployed more than 70% of our vehicles and equipment. All UK combat forces will have left Afghanistan by the end of this year. The focus of our assistance is now the Afghan national army officer academy, which aims to provide the professional and effective leaders the army needs to maintain security
	in the years to come. I would like to take this opportunity to thank our coalition partners—Australia, New Zealand, Denmark and Norway—which are working alongside us at the academy to develop the future leaders of Afghan army.
	Since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made the last quarterly statement to the House on 14 May, the academy has reached full operating capacity. The third kandak of recruits, including the first female blook, have commenced training. That is an important milestone for the academy, and we look forward to continuing to support the Afghans in its development. However, for that to happen, the new Afghan Government will need urgently to agree the US-Afghan bilateral security agreement, and the NATO status of forces agreement.
	As well as an effective military, Afghanistan needs political progress and stability to safeguard its future. The elections in April and June were an important step. The fact that they took place in a process managed by Afghan institutions was no small achievement for a people who until 10 years ago had never had the right to choose their leader.
	A constitutional, peaceful transfer of power from President Karzai to his elected successor will be a milestone for Afghanistan and a source of pride and hope for its people. The enthusiasm for the elections was demonstrated by the large number of people who participated, with more than 7 million voting in the first round.
	The UK continues to provide support to the electoral process and good governance. We have committed £20 million to help Afghan election bodies manage the 2014 and 2015 presidential and parliamentary elections. We are providing £4.5 million for a separate programme to increase women’s participation, and we have made £7.5 million available to help strengthen political institutions and processes.
	The presidential election process has been challenging, but we welcome the agreement between the presidential candidates to support a full audit of the ballots cast on 14 June and for the winner to establish a Government of national unity. We welcome the joint statement to NATO from the two candidates on 4 September, which reconfirmed their commitment to a Government of national unity.
	The UK helped the audit by providing dozens of observers as part of an international effort, and now that the audit has been completed, we encourage Dr Abdullah and Dr Ghani to continue to work together to build a Government of national unity. We have made it clear that our efforts are in support of the democratic process, and not any individual candidate. The choice of Afghan President must be for the people of Afghanistan to make.
	Although there were reasonable and legitimate concerns with the electoral process, they do not justify threats of violence or extra-constitutional measures. Such measures would only imperil Afghanistan by risking the international community’s future financial and security support for the country. Afghan leaders now need to come together to build on the progress and construct the positive, peaceful future that the people of Afghanistan deserve. I spoke to our ambassador in Kabul just a few moments before coming into this Chamber, and the situation remains unresolved. We continue to use all our influence to encourage both candidates in the presidential race to
	resolve the impasse over the election; to respect the outcome of the audit; and to engage candidly in the political process towards a deal to form a Government.
	We look forward in due course to working with the new Government as they build on the achievements of the past decade. We should be proud of the advances in basic services and economic development that we have helped to bring about. Some 6.7 million children now attend school, almost 3 million of whom are girls—there was virtually no female education under the Taliban. Some 15,000 km of roads have been rehabilitated, and 60% of the population now live within two hours’ walk of a public health facility, compared with less than 10% having any access to health care services in 2002.
	There has also been significant progress on human rights, particularly women’s rights, since 2001, but we recognise that the gains made are fragile. We continue to remind the Afghan Government of the need to abide by their international commitments and the Afghan constitution to ensure the equal rights of all their citizens and to respect freedom of worship.
	To help safeguard those gains, the UK will continue to support the Afghan Government’s efforts to build on the progress made, to grow their economy and to provide basic services and opportunities to all Afghans, including women. We are providing £3 million to strengthen access to justice for women in up to six provinces across Afghanistan. We contribute to the comprehensive agriculture and rural development facility—CARD-F—programme, which operates in five provinces, including a pilot programme in Helmand and a new intervention in Parwan. The programme promotes sustainable growth in legal rural incomes and employment. We also contribute to the strengthening provincial administration and delivery—SPAD—programme, which helps local government bodies in Bamyan deliver better public services in accordance with communities’ needs and priorities.
	We are acutely aware of the challenges that the new Government will face. Although the Afghan economy has improved considerably over the past decade, it still remains extremely fragile. The draw-down of international forces, a continued reliance on a volatile agricultural sector and delays to mining projects all mean that the economy remains vulnerable to shocks. The protracted election process has also affected economic growth.
	Afghanistan also faces significant fiscal challenges. The new Afghan Government will need to take urgent steps to manage expenditure, increase revenue collection further, address the fragility of its financial sector and strengthen governance and transparency. We will have an opportunity to discuss those issues when the UK Government co-chair the London conference on Afghanistan with the new Afghan Government in November. That conference will be an opportunity for the international community to reaffirm its support for Afghanistan’s development, to review progress against commitments made at the Tokyo conference in 2012 and to shape our future development partnership with Afghanistan, including the delivery of critical reforms, in the period after combat operations.
	This country should be proud of what we and the Afghan people have achieved since 2001. Our focus now is on helping the Afghans to build on the gains of the last decade and, through our enduring commitment to their security, continuing to protect the UK from harm. I commend the statement to the House.

John Spellar: I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of the quarterly statement. Given the scheduling of the statement, as he is aware, I shall be responding on behalf of the shadow Foreign Secretary.
	Let me join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the British service personnel who have served and continue to serve in Afghanistan, to their families, who support them every step of the way, and to the 435 killed serving our country. They are in our thoughts every time we meet to discuss Afghanistan in the House. I join him in offering condolences to the families of the two UK personnel who were injured in the attack at the Fahim national defence university, which took place since the last such statement.
	This has been a significant week in securing the future of Afghanistan following the ISAF draw-down by 2015, so we welcome the progress made at last week’s NATO summit, as outlined by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. It is clear that Afghanistan is a different country from what it was before operations began, and the whole House will agree that the priority now must be to agree a strategy for consolidating the gains achieved through such sacrifice. That strategy must include a political settlement for Afghanistan, a stable security agreement, support from regional allies, the continued engagement of international partners and the defence of human rights. I shall take each of those in turn.
	As the Foreign Secretary indicated, progress in Afghanistan crucially depends on Afghan leaders resolving their post-election differences and agreeing to form a unified leadership for their country. As talks and dialogue between Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani continue, the internationally backed process still holds the promise of being Afghanistan’s first democratic transfer of power, so will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what progress is being made in the negotiations? Does he agree that the process is particularly important given the need, as he mentioned, for a status of forces agreement to be reached with the Afghan Government, for which, of course, an Afghan Head of State is needed? Both candidates are committed to signing the agreement, but disputes about the results of the election have delayed any signature. Does he agree that an agreement is urgently needed so that the non-combat mission can be officially launched and the vital planning work can begin?
	Alongside vital political progress, Afghanistan’s future stability will inevitably require a strong and stable Afghan security force. Despite the important pledges made at last week’s NATO summit, which we welcome, there is still a real risk of there being a shortfall in funding for the Afghan security services after the international draw-down. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that more still needs to be done to ensure that continued resources are available to the Afghan security forces in the long term?
	What is his assessment of the Government’s confidence in the internal cohesion of those Afghan forces and their capabilities in the face of sustained pressure in the months ahead?
	With the end of the ISAF mission by the end of the year, the nature and scope of our engagement with Afghanistan will change. The Foreign Secretary made it clear that Britain’s post-2014 contribution will be focused
	on the Afghan national army officer academy, but are there any plans for the UK to contribute to broader non-combat missions in Afghanistan? With those forces remaining in a training role in Afghanistan for some time following the 2014 draw-down, can the right hon. Gentleman reassure us about the levels of force protection that are envisaged?
	Alongside our armed forces for many years now have been brave and committed British civilians from NGOs and Government officials, who have worked hard as part of an international aid effort to help to build peace and progress in Afghanistan. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that given events in Afghanistan and elsewhere, threats to their safety could become more significant? What steps are being taken to ensure the protection of international aid workers in Afghanistan?
	Recent events across the middle east have highlighted to all of us the effect that outside actors can have on the internal dynamics of a state. In Afghanistan it has long been the case that certain regional players, specifically neighbouring countries including Iran, hold the key to securing the long-term peace and stability we all want to see. There is still a real danger, if the neighbouring countries pursue individual agendas leading to instability in Afghanistan, that all of them, as well as the wider international community, will suffer from the fallout. What is being done to ensure the sustained and ongoing engagement of regional partners, in particular Pakistan?
	The progress the Foreign Secretary has outlined is welcomed by the whole House, but the continued commitment of NATO allies to the future security and prosperity of Afghanistan is still the key. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the protection of human rights remains a cornerstone of Afghanistan's future stability and security, and that the UK, along with allies, has a vital role to play in promoting this? We welcome the Government's hosting the development conference on Afghanistan in November. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the conference will place a significant emphasis on the protection of girls and women in post-2014 Afghanistan? In particular, will Afghan women's groups and activists be appropriately represented at the conference, and can he assure the House that their voices were also heard at the NATO summit?
	The Foreign Secretary described the significant gains made by women and girls since the Taliban lost power, but there remains a very real fear that that could be put at risk by the Taliban’s re-emergence at a political level, so will he act on Amnesty’s call for the UK to improve its support for human rights defenders, especially women, some of whom it was my privilege to meet recently? Will he draw up a country-specific plan, including appointing someone as a focal point in our embassy in Kabul? What assurances has the Foreign Secretary sought to ensure that those gains will be protected as part of any future negotiations over a political settlement with the Taliban and other insurgent groups?

Philip Hammond: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive tone of his remarks. I am delighted to learn, as I am sure everyone in the House is, that the shadow Foreign Secretary is not abroad somewhere, but working hard in and for the United Kingdom today.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about progress on the presidential negotiation. I think I mentioned in my statement the current state of play there. The audit is complete. I am told that the results of the audit will be made available privately to the candidates on the 11th or 12th of this month; there will then be a 48-hour period in which they can lodge formal complaints with the electoral complaints commission, with a public announcement expected on the 15th of this month. Notwithstanding the result of the audit, we are urging the two candidates to continue to work together on the political process to form a Government of national unity, and that is where we are focusing our effort at the moment.
	We have made our commitment on the funding of the ANSF, and many other nations have made commitments. The US, which is leading the funding effort, continues to chase the recalcitrants—those who have not yet signed up. My understanding, though, is that the United States is committed to meeting the funding deficit, if there is one after the hat has returned, having gone around the loop.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about Afghan national security forces’ capabilities. From my time as Defence Secretary, I can say to him with complete honesty that everyone I ever spoke to in the UK military had been positively surprised by the progress that the ANSF made in terms of both quality and the speed with which they delivered. They have continued to surprise us by their capabilities, the rapidity with which they have taken overall responsibility and the enthusiasm with which they have embraced the responsibility for defending their own country.
	Regarding the UK mission post-2014, our principal military contribution will be the Afghan national army officer academy. I think the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the level of our personnel contribution there will draw down quite rapidly after 2016, because this is essentially a train the trainer programme: we are building a cadre of Afghan trainers who will be able to staff the academy in the future. I can give him the assurance he seeks that we will maintain adequate force protection levels for our people for as long as they are there. I cannot tell him what that level will be, because to some extent it depends on how many troops other parties, particularly the United States, have in that part of the country, but we will work closely with them. We will also have advisers in Government security ministries—small numbers of high-level people who will exercise a significant influence and help the Afghan security ministries to reform their effort to support the Afghan national army in the field.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about protection for UK aid workers. That is an issue, as we will have a continuing significant aid programme. Most of that will be delivered through Afghan aid intermediaries, but we will have a number of UK aid workers, who will be Kabul based after the end of this year. We will make sure that proper arrangements are in place for their protection.
	The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that a key factor in the future stability of Afghanistan will be the attitude of its neighbours, particularly Pakistan but also Iran. We have an ongoing and very close dialogue with Pakistan. We are the sponsors of the trilateral dialogue between Afghanistan and Pakistan, mediated
	by the UK. Both the Afghans and the Pakistanis have made it clear to us that they find this initiative of the Prime Minister extremely helpful and they want it to continue, so we will continue to facilitate that discussion.
	On the NATO ISAF commitment, anyone present at the NATO summit will have been struck by the resolute commitment of the ISAF nations to protecting the legacy in which they have invested so heavily, and the measured way in which the Afghan Defence Minister representing the Afghan Government set out his position and the commitments that were made. Of course there is uncertainty about the outcome of the presidential election. The good news is that both candidates are well known to the UK and the ISAF allies, and their positions on the security agenda and foreign policy are almost identical. We expect to be able to work very well with whichever one eventually becomes president.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about human rights and the conference in November. There will be a significant human rights component to the conference. The Afghan Government made significant commitments on both human rights and anti-corruption at Tokyo, and the western and other financial commitments to support Afghanistan’s development were made in response to those. We will want to remind the Afghan Government of the solemn commitments that they have made and to ensure the mechanisms are in place for monitoring delivery. There will be a significant presence at the conference of Afghan non-governmental organisations, including the human rights activists the right hon. Gentleman mentions.

Richard Ottaway: There are clearly difficulties in the Afghan economy, with revenues down by 30% and civil servants not being paid, and the Foreign Secretary has spoken of difficulties in the agriculture and mining sectors. This will drive young men into the arms of the Taliban, and it would be ironic if the economy undermines the security situation. What progress has been made in offering support or advice, or enlisting international institutions, to help the Afghan economy?

Philip Hammond: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Afghan economy is fragile, even though it has very significant potential. We all know—perhaps, rather closer to home, we were reminded of it yesterday—that uncertainty is the enemy of smooth economic development and sustained growth. Once the new Government are in place, this will become a major focus for our effort and that of other allies.

Gisela Stuart: When the Foreign Secretary was Defence Secretary, he suggested that if the status of forces agreement was not signed by the end of September, we may consider accelerating the draw-down of our troops. Does he now assess that the outcome of the presidential election, or a dateline for that, is sufficiently certain that that will not be necessary?

Philip Hammond: We keep this situation under continuous review. We have two candidates who disagree about the outcome, but nobody disagrees that one of them has won. They are both absolutely committed to signing the bilateral security agreement and the status of forces agreement at the very beginning of their presidential term. At some point, this agreement must be signed.
	Practical decisions have to be taken by the UK and other countries in order to get our forces out by 31 December if an agreement is not in place, but our working assumption for now is that it will be put in place within the next few weeks.

Gerald Howarth: The Foreign Secretary referred to our enduring commitment to the security of Afghanistan. He will know that the former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Admiral Jim Stavridis, was very keen that the United Kingdom should leave a residual force of 1,000. We will be leaving about half that number. If this commitment is to mean anything, what will be the mix of the residual forces, and is the Foreign Secretary confident that they will be able to do the job?

Philip Hammond: I should first say that Admiral Stavridis’s comments, as my hon. Friend very well knows, were made in the context of a much higher total number that he was then bidding for to the Pentagon and other ISAF partners. The force that we leave behind will be focused around the training force in the Afghan national army officer academy, the life support troops working with them, the force protection element around that, and a detachment of engineers to support the small helicopter lift capability that we will need to retain in order to get people safely in and out of the officer academy. We are confident that that self-contained force will be adequate for the purposes we have set out.

Derek Twigg: The Foreign Secretary is aware of my concern about the early withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan given the continuing economic, political and security instability. Does he, on reflection, still think it was the right thing to do to withdraw troops this early?

Philip Hammond: Yes, I do. When the original announcement of the decision to end the ISAF combat mission in December 2014 was made, lots of people said that the ANSF would never be ready, that we could never build it up to its strength of 350,000, and that we would never be able to maintain stability on the ground. In fact, all those things have been achieved. The ANSF has built up its numbers and has demonstrated capability and commitment on the ground. In a sense, the ISAF draw-down has been a forcing mechanism for the Afghan Government, the Afghan people and the Afghan national security forces, and it leaves them stronger as a consequence.

Martin Horwood: I am very proud of the achievements of international forces and services in Afghanistan, including those associated with Gloucestershire, such as 1 Rifles, the allied rapid reaction corps, and of course GCHQ. However, with security once supported by international forces in Libya and Iraq threatening to unravel, does the Secretary of State agree that it is as important to the international community as it is to the Afghan national security forces that we deliver all the financial and technical support necessary to ensure their future success?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—that is of course essential. The analogy with Libya can be misleading, though. The problem in Libya is a power vacuum. In Afghanistan, we have a Government clearly
	in control of most of the country, we have the basic institutions of civil government in place, and we have the 350,000-strong armed forces who are in control of most of the country. That is a very different situation from the one in Libya.

Hywel Williams: Prior to the NATO summit, Mr Rasmussen looked forward to a new chapter in our relationship with Afghanistan. What hope is there for that new relationship, with further and continuing Taliban violence and the election result as yet still undeclared?

Philip Hammond: The situation is not perfect, and I am not pretending that it is. We would have preferred a clear and decisive outcome to the presidential election that was accepted immediately by the losing candidate. That is not what we have, although we are very optimistic that the stalemate will be resolved over the next few days. With regard to continuing Taliban violence, nobody ever doubted that there would be a continuing insurgency. The question is whether we have created strong enough institutions of government, strong enough civil institutions and strong enough armed forces to contain that insurgency and allow the normal life of the country to go on and to function. Of course, once the new Government are installed and foreign forces have withdrawn, thus removing one of the principal bones of contention for many of the insurgents, there must then be a move towards a peace process that reconciles the elements of the Taliban who are willing to give up violence with the existing forces of the Government so that we have long-term and sustainable peace in Afghanistan.

Andrew Robathan: My right hon. Friend has one or two problems on his plate at the moment, as he will be only too well aware. There are now reports of a pan-Islamist fundamentalist link-up between the Taliban and so-called Islamic State. Would he like to share his views on that? Is there any truth in it?

Philip Hammond: There is some evidence for it. My right hon. Friend will probably have seen evidence on his television screen of individual Taliban commanders. The Taliban are not a monolithic organisation but individual insurgent commanders who have indicated an attraction to the ideology of ISIL. That will be a problem that has to be managed. Everything is relative, is it not? A few years ago, we talked about the Taliban as an extreme Islamist movement. In the light of what we have seen in ISIL, it is probably fair to say that much of the Taliban agenda looks more like a nationalist agenda. It remains our belief that significant elements of the insurgency in Afghanistan are capable of being incorporated into a peace process. There will be small elements that are ideologically opposed to any compromise, and they will have to be dealt with very harshly.

Paul Flynn: The Foreign Secretary’s welcome admission of the fragility of the situation in Afghanistan was illustrated by the actions of Lieutenant-Colonel Enayatullah Barak, who did not reach Newport, although he was planning to be his country’s standard-bearer, because he sought asylum at
	Heathrow airport from what he regards as the hell of life in modern Afghanistan. Now that we are faced with many grave decisions on military activity in future, would it not be appropriate that this House looks to the decision that we took in 2006—when only two of our soldiers had died in combat—that led to 453 of them dying? That was the decision on going into Helmand. Should we not now plan to discover what went wrong with that decision?

Philip Hammond: The military, at least, regularly look at decisions that have been taken and consequences that flow from them, as part of their lessons learned process. We should be proud of what we have achieved in Afghanistan. Notwithstanding an individual who has decided that life in the UK looks more attractive than life in Afghanistan, the fact is that for ordinary Afghans life has got enormously better over the past few years.
	This country has been in a state of almost constant war for the past 30 or 40 years, and for the first time in most people’s living memory they have the beginnings of a functioning democracy; a rapidly growing, though still fragile, economy; human rights on a scale that they have never seen before; and access to health care, education and transport infrastructure that their parents could never have dreamed of. That is real and tangible progress, and we should be proud of the part we have played in it.

John Baron: Nevertheless, I put it to the Foreign Secretary that those of us who are critical of our Afghanistan policy point to the mistake made when we allowed the original, narrowly focused objective of defeating al-Qaeda, which we succeeded in doing and could have sustained, to morph into a much broader mission of nation-building, which we have struggled to sustain and which will ultimately result in the Taliban regaining control over large chunks of Afghanistan. What lessons can the Foreign Secretary draw from this episode with regard to our policy in the region generally?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend insists on looking at this with a glass-half-full mentality. Enormous gains have been made in Afghanistan and I simply do not accept that the inevitable outcome of this process is that the Taliban, as he says, will regain control of large areas of territory. I hope that a process of genuine reconciliation between the Taliban and the Government of Afghanistan will begin as soon as a new Government are in place. If my hon. Friend is inviting me to recognise the risks of mission creep, I promise him that I am up for that. I recognise entirely that when we go into any exercise, political or military, we need to be clear about the objectives we are seeking to achieve and we need to be extremely resistant to the temptation to allow the mission to creep.

Mike Gapes: What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had, either in his current role or previously, with Pakistan about how to stop the bases in Pakistan for elements of the Taliban that may not be reconciled to the new political arrangements? As he knows, the Durand line was drawn by a colonial administrator and does not reflect the Pashtun communities on both sides.

Philip Hammond: I am discovering in my new role that many lines representing the borders of many countries turn out to have been drawn with a red pencil by somebody in the Foreign Office many years ago. I visited Pakistan in my previous role and had many meetings here with previous Pakistani Prime Ministers and Presidents. Progress is being made along the border. A significant Pakistani effort is going on at the moment to deal with insurgents on the Pakistani side of the border in the North Waziristan agency area. It is essential that we continue to make the case that calming this border is in the interests of both countries. There are insurgents on both sides of the border operating across the border in the other country. The situation has to be a win-win for both countries in order to make it sustainable.

Crispin Blunt: My right hon. Friend might have noted that the Iranian authorities have just arrested a number of Afghan and Pakistani citizens on their way across Iran to join the fight for the Islamic State in Syria. Will he acknowledge the significant number of common interests we share with Iran in combating the Islamic State and on issues such as drug interdiction coming out of Afghanistan, and will he act accordingly?

Philip Hammond: I recognise, of course, that we have a number of areas of shared concern, the rise of ISIL being one and concerns about the flow of drugs another. My hon. Friend will know that we are on the brink of reopening our embassy in Tehran and we hope that that will be the beginning of a sustained but properly calibrated re-establishment of good working diplomatic relationships with Iran, hopefully on the back of a comprehensive agreement of the outstanding nuclear proliferation issue, which we hope to see later this year.

Dan Jarvis: May I ask the Foreign Secretary for two assurances? First, is everything being done, even at this late stage, to ensure that the Afghan security forces are at the highest level of capability? Secondly, although I completely agree that we should be proud of what we have achieved, will the Government take the opportunity at some point to learn the lessons from our commitment? It is important that we understand what we got right and what we got wrong, to inform the conduct of our foreign policy in the future.

Philip Hammond: I have some sympathy with that last point, but think that if such retrospectives are to be effective, we need to allow a little air gap so that the dust can settle and we can look at the issues from a proper historical perspective. I think that means that it will be an issue for the next Government to consider in a proper and timely fashion after the general election.
	In response to the hon. Gentleman’s first question, even at this late stage we are, of course, still building the Afghan national security forces. The emphasis has moved from the front-line forces—the fighting capability is good—to making sure that their logistics are improving so that those front-line forces get the support they need in the field.

James Gray: I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement about the engagement with Pakistan and the work being done to reduce the porousness of the Pakistan-Afghanistan
	border. Will he bring us up to date on the latest plans for the ownership and future use of Camp Bastion and Camp Shorabak and whether they might have a role to play?

Philip Hammond: The state of play when I was last in the Ministry of Defence, which was eight weeks ago, was that Camp Bastion will be transferred to the Afghans. That has been agreed in principle: the Afghans want to take control of it. At that stage, there was an issue about how the perimeter would be secured without stretching the forces of 215 Brigade, which is responsible for that area of Afghanistan. In principle, however, a reduced perimeter Bastion will pass into the control of the Afghan national security forces on 31 December.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Foreign Secretary has rightly drawn attention to the very difficult and hard-won progress on equal rights and human rights, not least with regard to the 6.7 million people—3 million of whom are girls and young women—who are now in school. Based on his analysis of the fragility of that progress and the fragile economy and politics of Afghanistan, how confident is the Foreign Secretary that it can be protected?

Philip Hammond: The Afghan constitution guarantees the rights of all Afghan citizens and we have to press the future Government of Afghanistan to ensure that the constitutional rights of all citizens are met. We also, of course, have a crucial lever in the Tokyo agreement, which provides that the substantial international aid support to Afghanistan over the years to come is specifically predicated on Afghan delivery on human rights, women’s rights and anti-corruption. By the way, this is not an agenda that we have to force on senior Afghans—all senior Afghan political players embrace it—but it is a deeply conservative country and they have to push this message down the line and make it work in practice across the provinces, towns and cities of Afghanistan. The conference in November will have a significant focus on how we ensure that the Tokyo commitments are delivered and that we work together with the Afghan Government to make that happen.

Julian Lewis: From his time as Defence Secretary, the Foreign Secretary will recall the argument that the hard-won gains in places such as Afghanistan could easily be reversed unless a strategic base or bridgehead area was established for the medium to long term in the region. Given what has happened in Iraq, where equally optimistic predictions about the long-term resilience of Iraqi forces were made, what would we expect to see in terms of a long or medium-term American presence if the status of forces agreement is eventually signed?

Philip Hammond: The US intention, subject to the bilateral security agreement being signed, is to have a continuing presence of US forces on the ground in Afghanistan, both for counter-terrorism activity and for the protection of US interests, but clearly I cannot speak for the US Government beyond the plans that they have already announced.
	I just want to pick up my hon. Friend’s analogy, which many other people have sought to draw, between the Iraqi security forces and the Afghan national security
	forces. Afghanistan is a country of multiple ethnicity; yet we have not seen the kind of ethnic tensions in the Afghan national security forces that have clearly been present in the Iraqi security forces, and which are widely believed by western observers to have been instrumental in the failure of those forces to halt the ISIL advance earlier this year.

Debbie Abrahams: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s information about the £3 million that is being provided for securing access to justice for women. Further to his response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) about confidence in protecting women’s and girls’ rights and ensuring that they are secured, what are the Government doing and what will they do at the Tokyo conference specifically to make sure that that happens?

Philip Hammond: I think that the hon. Lady means the London conference; the Tokyo conference took place in 2012, when the commitments were made. At the London conference, we will very much look to reassert and get reaffirmation of those commitments by Afghanistan. We can do two things: we can use the leverage of the very significant aid and support that we provide to Afghanistan, and we can use our direct ability to provide support to the indigenous institutions that monitor and promote such agendas. Many hon. Members who have been to Afghanistan have had the opportunity to meet quite incredibly brave Afghan human rights activists, including women who have come to the British embassy to talk to us about what they are doing. In what is still a deeply conservative country, they take some considerable personal risk to promote the agendas in which they believe.

Roger Williams: I am very pleased that the UK Government are still contributing to the comprehensive agriculture and rural development facility with the view to establishing sustainable agriculture, which will make a huge difference to the stability of Afghanistan and to expanding the economy. The UK once had a responsibility for bearing down on poppy growing in Afghanistan. Does it still have that responsibility, and how much progress has been made?

Philip Hammond: No, that is not our responsibility. An Afghan ministry is specifically devoted to poppy and drug eradication, and various initiatives are going on in different parts of the country. I have to say that the drug eradication programme is not one of the most strikingly successful elements of the package being delivered in Afghanistan. It is clearly an area in which significantly more work is required in the future.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. Much progress has been made. There is a question, however, about whether the Afghan national army is ready and able to take on the role whenever the UK withdraws from Afghanistan. I ask this question because the Iraqi army was well trained by the US army and the British Army and it was well equipped, but whenever the battle came from ISIS, it evaporated like snow off a ditch when the temperature
	rises. That prompts this question: what reassurance can the Foreign Secretary give the House that what happened in Iraq will not happen in Afghanistan? Along with the training and the equipment, is there a sincere and deep commitment there, and is the officer training college an integral part of ensuring that the Afghan national army can take on and continue to defeat the Taliban?

Philip Hammond: The officer training college is clearly vital, because good leadership is the key to an effective fighting force. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that the Afghan national army has shown itself to be very capable in a fight. There are questions about the sustainability of its logistics, about some of its senior command and control elements, and about the way in which the Ministry of Defence is organised and how it interacts with the army—these issues are all being addressed—but there are no questions about the willingness of Afghan soldiers to engage in combat, or their ability when they do so. If hon. Members talk to any British service people who have served on the front line in Helmand, gone out on patrols with Afghan soldiers or seen them in fire-fights, they will say that there is no doubt about their commitment, bravery and willingness to fight. In Iraq, the situation was exacerbated by a sectarian Government who were clearly not governing on behalf of the whole of the Iraqi people, and by an army that reflected and was fatally undermined by those sectarian divisions. Those conditions do not exist in Afghanistan.

Mary Macleod: I had the privilege some time ago of visiting Camp Bastion to see the incredible work that our servicemen and women have done there. Given those achievements, is my right hon. Friend convinced that the numbers, with the 350,000 personnel in the Afghan national security forces and those going through the officer academy, are sufficient to maintain lasting peace for the future?

Philip Hammond: The surge number of 352,000 was not arrived at randomly; it was very carefully calculated, and we believe that it is sufficient. It is not sustainable in the long term, but the US has made it clear that it, along with other allies, is prepared to commit the financial resources to sustain that number at least until 2017. By that time, we hope to be in the position to see a gradual reduction in the number needed to maintain internal security.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our emphasis must now shift from military involvement towards securing an enduring political settlement by good governance measures, such as encouraging the two presidential candidates to work together, and particularly by providing financial advice on tax-raising powers, as we have for several years?

Philip Hammond: Good governance is, indeed, one of the essential ingredients. I think my hon. Friend is aware that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has provided advice to the Afghan Treasury on how to improve its tax yield, which is an essential element in stabilising the Government’s finances. We will continue to provide advice and support to the Afghan Government,
	but we will also continue to encourage the peace process and, once the new Government is in place, to encourage outreach to moderate elements of the Taliban in the hope of reaching a comprehensive peace settlement.

Jeremy Lefroy: The London conference will be an excellent opportunity to continue to remind the Afghan Government, as my right hon. Friend has said, of their need to abide by their international commitments to ensure the equal rights of all their citizens and to respect freedom of worship. How much success has he had in such discussions so far?

Philip Hammond: As I have said already, the Afghan constitution guarantees the human rights of the citizens and their right to freedom of worship. The Afghan Government made pledges to respect human rights and freedom of worship at Tokyo. However, we are not naive: we recognise that there can be a gap between what is written on a page of the constitution and what is delivered on the ground, and we will focus on that in the months and years ahead.

Mark Pawsey: The Foreign Secretary has spoken about the future of Camp Bastion. Will he say something about the equipment that may well be left behind and the steps being taken to ensure that it is put to good use by the Afghan security forces?

Philip Hammond: Most of the equipment in use in Afghanistan—the big kit, as it were, or the serious bits of equipment—will be brought back to the UK. Indeed, the vast majority of it has already been brought back to the UK, rehabilitated and brought back into core for
	the future use of the British Army as part of its Future Force 2020 posture. If equipment cannot be brought back but is of sustainable use to the Afghans, which means that they can sensibly use and maintain it—it is no good leaving them kit that they cannot service and maintain—then it will, where appropriate, be gifted to them. Equipment that fits into neither category will be destroyed so that it cannot possibly fall into the wrong hands.

Philip Hollobone: By what mechanism can international development assistance from a wide range of nations best be co-ordinated to ensure sustainable economic development for the Afghan economy?

Philip Hammond: The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are involved in that process, and the London conference in November will of course be a further opportunity to co-ordinate the actions of the donors.

Bob Russell: Six years ago, 16th Air Assault Brigade, with personnel from all four battalions of the Parachute Regiment, undertook an extremely dangerous mission in transporting a huge turbine through hazardous terrain to the Kajaki dam. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us how much electricity it is generating?

Philip Hammond: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the turbine has still not been installed. However, the last time I was in Afghanistan, a US team was looking at what could be done to bring it into operational use, because doing so could satisfy the electricity deficit in Kandahar.

Hallett Report

Theresa Villiers: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the follow-up to the Hallett report on the on-the-runs administrative scheme, which was laid before the House on 17 July.
	In response to the report’s recommendations, and on the basis of the advice I have received and considered, I have decided that the statement I make today is the fairest, promptest and most effective way to reduce the risk to future prosecutions and to provide the clarity called for in the report. I make this statement on behalf of the Government, having consulted the independent police and prosecuting authorities, who have seen this statement and agree that it represents the best way forward.
	Lady Justice Hallett emphasised on a number of occasions in her report that the letters, however phrased, were not an amnesty. They were not a commitment by the state that individuals would not be prosecuted, whatever the strength of the case against them. They were only ever meant as statements of the facts, as they were believed to be at the time, as to whether or not an individual was wanted for questioning by the police. They were not intended to preclude investigation or prosecution on the basis of new evidence emerging after they were sent or fresh assessment of the existing evidence. However, in the light of her report, and in the light of the Downey case, it is clear to me that urgent clarification is needed on what comfort, if any, can be derived from those letters now.
	There are two key points that it is important that all concerned should be clear about. First, the letters described by the Hallett report, issued in whatever form, or any similar or equivalent statements not made in letters, do not represent any commitment that the recipient would not be investigated or prosecuted if that is considered appropriate on the basis of the evidence available now. Those who received individual or composite letters, or any other form of indication, stating that they were “not wanted” and who derived comfort from that should cease to derive any such comfort. In short, the recipients should cease to place any reliance on those letters.
	Secondly, decisions about investigations and prosecutions will be taken simply on the basis of the intelligence and/or evidence relating to whether or not the person concerned committed offences. That means that in any of their cases, and whatever was said in the letters sent to them or in statements made in the past, decisions taken today and in future will be taken on the basis of the views formed about investigation and prosecution by those who now have responsibility for those matters. Their views might be the same as those that led to the letters being sent in the past, or they might be different. It is the views of those who take the decisions now or in future that matter. All the evidence will be taken into account, regardless of whether it was available before the letters were sent or whether it has emerged subsequently.
	That does not mean that all those who received “not wanted” statements in the past are now considered “wanted”; it simply means that they are in the same position as any other member of the public. If there is considered to be evidence or intelligence of their
	involvement in crime, they will be investigated by the police, and if the evidence is sufficient to warrant prosecution they will be prosecuted. That was always the intended status of the scheme, but the issues raised by the Downey case and highlighted in the Hallett report have made today’s clarification necessary.
	I regard that as the appropriate position to take, and not an unfair one, for the following general reasons. The implementation of the scheme was highly unsatisfactory and suffered from a series of systemic failings, as the Hallett report set out for the House. It was developed piecemeal and without appropriate direction. There were various different forms of letters, and the content of a number of them was unsatisfactory. We know that errors of fact were made, and it may well be that errors of judgment were also made when cases were considered under the scheme. It is now clear that at least some of the letters were issued on an unreliable basis. The defects in the scheme identified by the report mean that there is a serious risk that that will turn out to be the case in relation to other letters as well.
	The public interest in investigating and prosecuting serious crime is too important for there to be a risk of it being undermined by a scheme that, as is now clear, suffered from such significant flaws in its implementation. There is a particularly strong public interest in decisions about investigation and prosecution being taken on the basis of the current views, based on assessment now of all the evidence, of those responsible for investigating and prosecuting serious crime.
	The letters have generated a serious degree of confusion about precisely what their legal effects might be, whether alone or when set alongside other facts, as in the John Downey case. It is very important for there to be clarity, particularly in the context of serious crime. It is to be recognised that, correctly or not, some of the recipients will have derived some comfort from a “not wanted” letter. It might be that some “not wanted” letters were issued in error or were based on flawed judgments at the time, and that the recipients of such letters were given a degree of comfort that was in fact unwarranted, even on the basis of the information at the time. That is greatly to be regretted. Such errors should never have occurred.
	However, two points are to be noted in any such cases, in addition to the more general points I have just made. First, the public interest in mounting an investigation or prosecution, if the evidence warrants it, would remain very powerful. It should be a rare case indeed in which such an error should prevent such a prosecution—all the more so if the crime in question is a very serious one. Secondly, those who have received such statements now know in clear terms what position the Government take. They now have fair and clear warning that such comfort as they might have derived from the statements can no longer be taken. There is no continuing basis for any reliance on past statements. The scheme is at an end.
	All those who sought or received statements through the administrative scheme should take note of today’s statement. I have deliberately made it in the public setting of Parliament, recognising and intending that it should be widely publicised as a result. I will take further steps to disseminate it. I will be drawing it to the attention of each of those who made requests on behalf of named individuals, reflecting the channels through
	which the communication of the original letters was made. In these ways, I can be confident that fair and proper notice will have been given to those affected by this statement, including those to whom letters were sent under the scheme. I commend this statement to the House.

Ivan Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The continued pain of the families and friends of the Hyde park victims should be at the forefront of our minds today, as well as all those in both communities who have never had truth or justice in relation to their own injuries or the loss of loved ones during the troubles. The outcome of the Downey case undoubtedly caused further distress to people who have suffered enough and deserved better. That is why I felt it was right to apologise for the catastrophic error that occurred in this specific case. I repeat that apology today.
	However, it is also right to be robust in reminding people of the hard realities and tough choices that faced those striving against the odds to end the violence and secure a historic political agreement. Decisions were made and things done to make possible a peace process that, for all Northern Ireland’s challenges, has stood the test of time, a peace process that ended 30 years of troubles and brought to an end the killings, brutality and fear that destroyed too many lives.
	If anyone thinks that it was easy, they have neither studied Northern Ireland’s history, nor reflected on the current political stalemate across a range of issues, a stalemate caused partly by an inability to compromise and partly because some of the issues touch festering sores not healed by the passage of time. In that context, the First Minister’s comments today should be welcomed as a frank acknowledgement that although much progress has been made, the current situation is unsustainable.
	As the Secretary of State has repeatedly said, the OTR scheme was neither unlawful nor offered an amnesty to recipients of the letters. Lady Justice Hallett confirmed that to be the case. The clear intent of the scheme was to inform people not being sought by the police or prosecuting authorities that that was their status at the time their letter was sent. It was also clearly the intent of the scheme to make them aware that if any future evidence of a crime became available, they would be subject to appropriate action by the criminal justice system. However, Lady Justice Hallett found that errors had been made in at least two cases in addition to Downey, and identified the possibility that there may have been other examples where the basis or content of letters was questionable. In those circumstances the Government are right to seek to minimise the risk that other victims could be denied justice in the future. All Northern Ireland’s parties accept that the needs of victims must be at the centre of any new approach to dealing with the past. If that commitment is to mean anything, the Government had no option but to issue today’s clarification on the status of the letters.
	I have some questions for the Secretary of State. How long does she estimate that it will take for the Police Service of Northern Ireland to assess each case covered by the OTR scheme, and is she satisfied that it has sufficient resources to undertake that work? Does she
	agree that while there may be circumstances where an agreed truth recovery process could protect people from incriminating themselves, an across-the-board amnesty would fail the non-negotiable test of creating a system to deal with the past that puts the needs of victims at centre stage? Is she willing to accept that there is an urgent need for the UK Government—where appropriate, supported by the Irish Government—to create and facilitate a process in support of the Northern Ireland parties that can seek to end the stalemate on the Haass issues, including the past and welfare reform? I conclude by thanking Lady Justice Hallett once again for her thorough and balanced report.

Theresa Villiers: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his support for the statement. Like him, I think that the concerns of victims must lie at the heart of our response to the OTR scheme, and I apologise to them for the error that was made and the pain that the Downey case has caused. I am happy to reiterate that apology. As the hon. Gentleman said, I also recognise that the First Minister’s comments today in the Belfast Telegraph are an important statement to which I will give careful thought. It is important that these matters are discussed with care across the Northern Ireland political parties. As I said in a speech to the British-Irish Association last week, it is important that progress is made on welfare reform, as well as on flags, parading and the past.
	In response to the last question by the shadow Secretary of State, I say clearly that the Government will continue to do all we can to bring all the parties back to the table on those matters, and facilitate and push for an agreed way forward.
	How long it will take the PSNI to assess all the cases processed under the scheme is primarily a matter for it, and it would not be appropriate for me to speak on its behalf. It has indicated, however, that it could take years and will not be done in a matter of months. We also had a recent statement by the Chief Constable that his resources will impact on his ability to deal with legacy issues of this sort, and the resources available to the PSNI are affected by the current debate on welfare reform. It appears that the in-year cuts being made to the PSNI’s budget will have an impact on its ability to deal with legacy cases, so I expect they will also impact on the speed with which it can consider these cases.

Owen Paterson: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. On matters to do with OTRs we should always consider the victims, and victims’ families will welcome her statement today, confirming the view of Lady Justice Hallett that the letters could never have been considered in any way to represent an amnesty, and that should fresh evidence come forward those who received letters will be subject to the full force of the law. Will the Secretary of State confirm the Government’s robust view that an amnesty was never appropriate, and that all applications for the royal prerogative of mercy received by the Government have been refused by the Government?

Theresa Villiers: I am happy to confirm what I have said on many occasions: this was not an amnesty, and that has been confirmed by all those who have appeared in front of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I
	believe it is confirmed by Lady Justice Hallett, and it was confirmed by Sir Nigel Sweeney in the Downey judgment. The Government have always strongly opposed amnesties, which is why they opposed the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. If we had inherited a scheme that involved an amnesty, we would have stopped it immediately. This was not an amnesty, and we will not be introducing an amnesty under any circumstances.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the fact that she made it in the House after discussions with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I think that is appropriate, and I know a lot of people will appreciate the statement today. I also welcome the clarion certainty of the statement that this shameful episode is now over. Many people in Northern Ireland will welcome the fact that a line has been drawn under this.
	Last week at the Select Committee the Secretary of State reiterated her appropriate and contrite apology for this matter—indeed, that was echoed by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman. In the Committee yesterday, however, the former chief of staff of the then Prime Minister, Mr Jonathan Powell, refused to apologise. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be appropriate of the author of the scheme also to recognise that it was wrong and apologise?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman has obviously taken a close interest in this matter, and he is right to view today as drawing a line under it and reaching an end to what has been a painful episode for many people. On the evidence given to NIAC by Jonathan Powell, I think it is a matter for him whether he chooses to apologise. As I said in relation to the scheme, although I would not necessarily have done everything in the same way as the previous Government, or necessarily agreed with their overall approach to OTRs, I recognise that they were striving for a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland, and dealing with an extremely difficult situation and difficult judgments.

Nigel Mills: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. At its start she mentioned that she discussed this issue with the various authorities in Northern Ireland. At the Select Committee last week I asked whether she would consider asking those authorities to make a similar statement, so that we could be sure that the courts in Northern Ireland accept that this status is for the whole of the UK, not just the Secretary of State, given that she has no power over the courts in Northern Ireland. Has she taken that on board and ruled it out?

Theresa Villiers: I did give that suggestion some thought and I discussed it with David Ford. I continue to be of the view that these statements were made by the UK Government—largely by the Northern Ireland Office, and by No. 10 in a couple of instances—so it is for the UK Government to clarify their status. The key factor is that this is the Government’s statement of what the letters now mean. In those circumstances I do not think it is necessary for an additional statement to be published by the Department of Justice or the devolved authorities, but, as I have told the House, they agree that this is the
	best way forward to do whatever we can to try to remove barriers to prosecution that might be created by the scheme.

Peter Hain: Does the Secretary of State agree that in a way her statement confirms what was the case all along: that the letters were not get out of jail free cards, but confirmed what the police and law officers assessed at the time, which was that these people were not wanted—wrongly in the case of Downey, and absolutely and rightly an apology is due for that—but that that did not preclude prosecutions in future should evidence come to light? I realise that that gives deep offence to victims and to my Unionist friends, but the letters were essential building blocks to get the peace settlement to drag Northern Ireland away from the horror, evil and terror of the past. It would be very dangerous and toxic somehow retrospectively to rescind those letters. I know the Secretary of State is not doing that; she is simply confirming their legal status, or lack of it, but I caution people because the scheme was part of getting us from the horror of the past to the peace and stability that we now enjoy.

Theresa Villiers: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that my statement is consistent with how the scheme was always intended to operate. It was intended to be a scheme to establish whether an individual was wanted, not to provide an amnesty or assurance to those who were wanted that they were not wanted. It was also clear from the Hallett report that John Downey should never have received a letter. If the scheme had been properly administered, no such letter would have been issued. It was that serious error that led to the result in the Downey case.
	On the legal effect of today’s announcement, as I have said, I do not believe that the words “rescind” or “revoke” are appropriate. It is much better to stick to the fact that these letters should no longer be relied on, and owing to the systemic flaws in the scheme, it might well be that further errors were made. Decisions on the prosecution of recipients of letters will be taken in exactly the same way as they are in relation to every other member of the public: if there is evidence or intelligence to justify arrest, that is what will happen.

Stephen Lloyd: rose—

Mr Speaker: I fear the hon. Gentleman toddled into the Chamber slightly late, but I am in a generous mood.

Stephen Lloyd: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I apologise for being a couple of minutes late.
	I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement on the Hallett report. It certainly reassured me, and will reassure a lot of people in Northern Ireland, particularly because the report emphasises that any comfort that recipients would have taken from the letters is misguided. Does she know how many people may not receive comfort and may be further investigated?

Theresa Villiers: The PSNI has told NIAC and the Policing Board that it is looking at all 187 “not wanted” indications. Lady Justice Hallett identified two cases in which she believed a mistake had been made and highlighted a further 36 cases processed by the Operation Rapid team
	between February 2007 and November 2008 in which she said there was a risk that an inappropriate threshold might have been applied. There might therefore be at least 38 cases where there is reason to question the original conclusions. It will be known whether that is the situation in further cases only once the PSNI completes its investigations, but given the systemic failings, there must be a risk that errors occurred in other cases as well.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Secretary of State will be aware that some of the names proposed for the scheme came from the Irish authorities. Given former Irish Justice Minister Michael McDowell’s recent comment that the Irish Government were not pursuing those responsible for terrorist actions in their jurisdiction, what is her current understanding of that Government’s position?

Theresa Villiers: I have spoken to Charlie Flanagan, the Irish Foreign Minister, about this matter, and he has given me the clearest assurances that there was no policy to refrain from prosecuting terrorist offences, that the statements and speculation were groundless and that if there was evidence in the Irish justice system to justify arrest and prosecution, that would happen.

Oliver Colvile: As my right hon. Friend knows, yesterday morning, Jonathan Powell, chief of staff to Tony Blair, gave evidence to NIAC and confirmed—inadvertently or advertently—that he might have perverted the course of justice when in April 2000 he told Rita O’Hare, a leading republican politician, not to come to meetings with British officials in Northern Ireland. Will she confirm that Rita O’Hare is still wanted by the PSNI for questioning over terrorist activities?

Theresa Villiers: It would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases and I do not propose to do so.

Kate Hoey: I thank the Secretary of State for giving an oral statement, not a written statement, on this important matter.
	Will the Secretary of State put herself into the mind of one of these people who got a comfort letter and who has been very comforted for the past few years? If they know that they did something appalling that is still being investigated, would she advise them to leave the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom?

Theresa Villiers: My advice to people who have received letters is to read my statement with care and no longer to take comfort from the letters they have received. I emphasise, however, that today’s statement does not mean that those who received “not wanted” letters are now suddenly wanted. It might be that after review of their cases the conclusion turns out to be the same; that many of them are “not wanted”, and that there is no evidence to justify prosecution. It would be a mistake to assume that all the individuals processed by the scheme were terrorists—that has not been established—but it has been established that mistakes were made in some cases, which is one reason that the letters should no longer be relied on.

Philip Hollobone: I commend the Secretary of State for the clarity of her statement. However, a line will finally be drawn under this grubby episode only when somebody who has received a letter is successfully prosecuted for a terrorist-related offence. Like me, would she be disappointed if there were not such a successful prosecution?

Theresa Villiers: These decisions are rightly matters for independent police and prosecuting authorities, and no option is available to me that will give us 100% protection against a successful abuse-of-process defence in the future. This is, however, the most effective and expeditious way I can seek to remove potential barriers and reduce the likelihood of another prosecution collapsing.

David Simpson: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, although the scheme should never have been implemented in the first place. Victims might take some comfort, however, from the fact that not only existing but historical evidence can be taken into consideration. However, does she agree that even though the Hallett report said things were not done in secret, the evidence from all the senior police officers is that they were not informed about the letters until the Downey case?

Theresa Villiers: Clearly, much of the distress caused to victims was the result of the scheme not being transparent. People did not know it was happening and that has caused great distress and contributed to anxiety and misunderstanding about the scheme. It was clear that the PSNI knew that indications were being given to OTRs about their status and it was pretty clear that the Royal Ulster Constabulary knew from the start that indications were being given—though not necessarily how—but there was not enough clarity about how it was being done. A key problem identified by Lady Justice Hallett was that the PSNI did not see the text of the Northern Ireland Office letter until December 2011. The lack of transparency created problems not only for the general public, who did not know what was going on, but internally by making errors in the scheme more likely. With hindsight, that aspect of the scheme should have been handled differently and it is regrettable that it was not dealt with more transparently.

Mark Durkan: The Secretary of State tells us that the letters are not rescinded, but that they are not to be relied upon. Should it arise that someone finds themselves in a court and seeks to rely on the letter and on the case law, how confident is she that a court would not decide as it did in the Downey case? Does she expect that, in that situation, evidence would again be given by former Secretaries of State and a former adviser to the Government which presents things in a different light from that presented to the House today?

Theresa Villiers: As I have said, while doing everything possible to reduce the risk that an abuse-of-process defence might succeed in future cases, today’s statement cannot eliminate that risk. If a case were brought against an OTR with a letter, it is certainly possible that they could seek to rely on that letter. What I am saying very clearly is that it is no longer safe to rely on those letters. What is more difficult to deal with is reliance that has already taken place. That is certainly something that the
	courts can and will take into account, but I am confident that this statement does everything possible to try to ensure that an abuse-of-process defence does not succeed in the future. The Government are being completely clear that it is no longer safe to rely on the letters, and such reliance is obviously a key plank of an abuse-of-process defence, as it was a key plank of the Downey judgment.

Lady Hermon: I thank the Secretary of State most sincerely for her statement and for the strength of purpose with which she delivered it. I am curious—I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members are, too—whether the Secretary of State has received information from the police, or indeed the intelligence services, that would indicate that recipients of comfort letters have already absconded again to the Republic of Ireland. If so, will that information be shared with the newly established oversight board, including with the advisers who will be in attendance in a supervisory capacity?

Theresa Villiers: I am afraid that I do not feel it would be appropriate to comment on individual cases or to share that kind of information. I would emphasise, however, that the oversight board to which the hon. Lady has referred is looking at all matters relating to the OTR scheme. While entirely respecting the independence of the police and prosecuting authorities, we are determined to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes again and that all those who have a role or an interest in these matters are looking carefully at how we take forward the Hallett recommendations. There will be a frank and full sharing of information within that policy board between the police and the Northern Ireland Office.

Naomi Long: I thank the Secretary of State for her clear statement today, in which she reiterated that the scheme was never a devolved scheme. She has said in previous statements, too, that this matter was never devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly or to the Department of Justice. Will she therefore explain the justification for transferring the financial burden of the review of the scheme and each of the cases to the devolved budgets, particularly given that the PSNI is already facing considerable pressures on its finances? This was never a devolved scheme; it was never within any budget; no budget line has been set aside for it—yet the costs are simply being passed on to the PSNI. Does the Secretary of State not agree that she should have discussions with the Department of Justice to resolve this matter in a much more fair and equitable manner?

Theresa Villiers: I can assure the hon. Lady that I have had many discussions about their resources with the Department of Justice and the PSNI, and indeed with the Department of Finance and Personnel. It is a difficult situation; the hon. Lady raises a very good point about the allocation of responsibility for funding the ongoing work. The reality is that these are now matters for the criminal justice system, so it is within the remit of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the PSNI. The lines between national security work and the rest of the criminal justice system are always blurred, which is why the Government have provided substantial additional funding to the PSNI to reflect the particular
	circumstances it faces. We have confirmed that for the current spending review and for 2015-16. This, of course, is an important part of ensuring that the PSNI can do its job both in current policing and on legacy matters.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for the much improved statement and for the Hallett report, which was very clear about the letters of comfort. As the statement says, “the letter recipients should cease to place any reliance on those letters.” Will the Secretary of State confirm that those in other jurisdictions, such as the Republic of Ireland, should be made aware that if they cross the border into Northern Ireland or appear on a flight at Heathrow or elsewhere in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, they will be detained? Will she indicate the exchange of information between the PSNI and the Garda Siochana in order to catch those responsible wherever they may be?

Theresa Villiers: I assure the hon. Gentleman that individuals coming from whatever part of the world will be treated on the basis of the evidence and the assessment if it available today. If that evidence justifies arrest, that is what will happen. The relationship between the PSNI and the Garda Siochana is perhaps stronger than it has ever been; levels of co-operation deepen year by year. They work extremely well together on pursing offenders either side of the border. I am sure that that will continue in respect of all individuals, regardless of whether they possess a letter under the scheme.

Huw Irranca-Davies: This is an important and much needed statement, not least for its clarification that those who have come to rely on the letters of comfort should, in the Secretary of State’s words, “cease to derive” any such comfort, and that they will be in the same position as any other member of the public. In the light of the breakdown of the all-party talks on mechanisms to address the issues of the past, what additional support will the Secretary of State put in place to get that going again?

Theresa Villiers: I agree that it is absolutely vital that the parties get round the table again on flags, parading and the past. There is so much to be gained in Northern Ireland from finding an agreed way forward. These issues are hugely difficult, and every day they have the potential to cause real gridlock and disruption to Assembly decision making. We all want the devolved institutions to succeed. They have a big programme of government to deliver. They have achieved a lot, but unless they can find a way to unblock the two issues of flags, parading and the past on the one hand, and welfare reform on the other, their ability to deliver for their electorates will be significantly impaired. I will continue to press all the parties to come together to find a deal and a way forward, as they have successfully done so often in the past.

Andrew Robathan: I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the House for not being present at the very beginning of the statement.
	Given that the situation regarding the letters has been clarified and that there is no longer a process to be abused, would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
	State consider talking to the relevant authorities in the PSNI, the Metropolitan police and perhaps in the Garda about whether the case against Mr Downey could be re-opened? As she said in her statement, if the evidence is sufficient to warrant prosecution, people will be prosecuted, and it appears that the Metropolitan police had evidence to pursue an allegation against Mr Downey.

Theresa Villiers: Once a stay of prosecution is granted, it is more or less impossible for it ever to be lifted. That means that I think it is inconceivable that Mr Downey could ever stand trial on a future occasion in relation to the Hyde park bombing. It would, of course, be possible for the police to look at other cases and other evidence in relation to Mr Downey; there would be nothing to stop them doing so.

Points of Order

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. An announcement was made earlier today that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, wearing their hats as party leaders, are to go to Scotland tomorrow to spell out more details about further devolution of power to Scotland in the event of a no vote next week. The Deputy Prime Minister was giving evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee earlier today and I asked him why the UK House of Commons was not going to be told first about the details of further devolution so that Members could ask questions. There could, for example, be a Government statement on the issue at 7 o’clock this evening. The Deputy Prime Minister told me that the Government could not make such a statement, because of the rules of purdah.
	My point of order, Mr Speaker, is to ask whether it is correct, under the procedures of this House, that the rules of purdah prevent Ministers from making a statement to our House about proposals for further devolution for Scotland. If purdah is not a bar, and if the Government are genuinely keen to share this information with the House, would it possible for them to make a statement at 7 o’clock this evening?

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My understanding is that the convention of purdah during election and referendum campaigns is not a convention of a parliamentary character. There is nothing to prevent, or render illegitimate, the communication by a Minister of a view or intention to this House, and I therefore understand, having taken advice, that what the hon. Gentleman said about the possibility of a Government statement, either tonight or tomorrow, is correct. I am sure that there will be a warm glow on the countenance of the hon. Gentleman when he hears it said that he is correct.

Peter Hain: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As both a former Leader of the House and a former Welsh Minister who led the referendum campaign in Wales in 1997, I can express some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s view. It seems to me paradoxical, to say the least, that Ministers, including the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, can make statements about the future of the United Kingdom outside the House, but cannot make such statements inside the House. As I understand it, the purdah applies to Government resources, and would prevent, for example, the sudden issue of a Government White Paper or a leaflet during the purdah period, but does not prevent the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions tomorrow, or the Deputy Prime Minister at any time, from making a statement to the House. I therefore strongly endorse your interpretation of the point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, not least because, as he reminded the House, he has done so on the back of considerable experience of leading the House and, previously, of leadership responsibilities in Wales. My
	understanding is his understanding, and it is also the understanding of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). In any case, in so far as purdah is an applicable concept in this regard, it applies to what is said outside the House as well as what is said inside the House. There does seem to be a slightly paradoxical notion that it is okay to say something outside the House, but not okay to say it inside the House. The issue, it seems to me, is whether the basic convention is being adhered to or not: whether what is being said is a proper thing to be said. If it is a proper thing to be said, it is perfectly proper for it to be said in this House.

Pete Wishart: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. What we have learnt from the media is that significant new powers for Scotland will be offered during a purdah period. I listened very carefully to your rulings in response to both the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), but it seems to me that purdah will be broken, and that there is no excuse for the fact that the statement is being made outside the House, because it is still being made.
	Can you tell us, Mr Speaker, whether this does indeed break purdah? Can you also tell us when you were first advised that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would not be present for Prime Minister’s questions tomorrow, what arrangements have been put in place, and why they are fleeing—at such notice, and in such blind panic—to Scotland tomorrow?

Mr Speaker: I think that there are just two points for me to make in response to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. First, although I have happily responded to points of order on the matter, it is important for me to emphasise—consistent with what I have said about purdah not being a convention of a parliamentary character—that purdah is not a matter for the Chair.
	The second point relates to a factual inquiry from the hon. Gentleman about when I heard that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would not be here for Prime Minister’s questions tomorrow. I did receive an indication of that within, I think, the last hour—

Pete Wishart: The last hour?

Mr Speaker: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the expression of shock upon his countenance, that absolutely nothing disorderly has taken place here. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced—I will not say “old hand”, but he is an experienced hand. He knows that, periodically, Prime Minister’s questions take place with the principals absent, and that in those
	circumstances it is quite common for the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) to represent the Government, and very common for the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) to represent the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman may disapprove of that state of affairs, but nothing disorderly has happened.

Angus MacNeil: Further to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I do not think that the day would be complete without a point of order from the hon. Gentleman.

Angus MacNeil: I am very grateful, Mr Speaker; thank you very much. I wondered whether any of the procedures of the House can prevent Members—in this case, party leaders—from breaking the rules of purdah outside the House.

Mr Speaker: No. Nothing.
	Well, I think that the House is satisfied for the time being—or, at any rate, that the appetite for points of order has been satisfied.

BILLS PRESENTED
	 — 
	Recall of Elected Representatives

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Zac Goldsmith, supported by Mr David Davis, Anne Marie Morris, Mr Andrew Mitchell, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nick de Bois, Mr Frank Field, Kate Hoey, Caroline Lucas, Roger Williams, Jonathan Edwards and Mark Durkan, presented a Bill to make provision about the recall of Members of the House of Commons; to allow for the extension of such provision to other offices; to provide that the recall of elected representatives in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland be a devolved matter; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2015, and to be printed.(Bill 88).

Affordable Housing Contributions (Ten Unit Threshold)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Tim Farron, supported by Annette Brooke, Sir Nick Harvey, Jeremy Lefroy and John Woodcock, presented a Bill to give local planning authorities the power to determine the requirements for affordable housing contributions from sites of fewer than 10 units as part of planning obligation agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2015, and to be printed.(Bill 90).

Service Charges, Gratuities and Cover Charges (Hospitality, Leisure and Service Sectors) (Statutory Code)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Andrew Percy: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a code relating to service charges, gratuities and cover charges in the hospitality, leisure and service sectors; and for connected purposes.
	The current position relating to tips, gratuities, service charges and cover charges is not clear or transparent for consumers, and is also unfair to employees, who often do not receive all the money that customers try to give them following their service. The Bill results from a number of examples that I have encountered in my constituency, where people working in the service sector have raised concerns about whether or not their employers are passing on tips and service charges, but also from what has been said in some of the national media, and, of course, from my own conversations in restaurants and hotels with those who work in them.
	Consumers often do not know whether charges on a bill are mandatory or discretionary. They often have no idea of how much, if anything, the employee will actually receive. There is no requirement in law for service charges or tips to be distributed to employees, and there is far too much confusion over the whole matter. Customers often feel that there is more of a chance that the employee will receive the tip if it is made in cash rather than with a credit card, but that varies from business to business. That, too, proves that there is a lack of transparency in the matter.
	Following pressure from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty)—who, sadly, is not here today; I assume that he is in Scotland trying to save our beloved Union—the last Government did implement changes by introducing a voluntary best-practice code in 2009, and also outlawing the previous arrangement whereby tips could be used to top up the minimum wage, which, of course, was different in this particular sector.
	The new code of best practice acknowledged four key principles, and asked businesses to agree to them when they signed up to it. Those principles were that businesses should display, prior to point of purchase, their policy relating to mandatory and discretionary service charges and tips; that businesses should have a process to deal with requests for information on how service charges, tips, gratuities and cover charges were dealt with and shared out; that businesses should ensure that workers were able to explain the policy, and were confident about doing so; and that workers should be fully informed about how service charges, tips, gratuities and so forth were distributed, and how deductions were made.
	The code was supposed to promote transparency, which is beneficial not only to employees but to employers and consumers. A research poll by Gallup found that engaged employees generate 43% more revenue and are 87% less likely to leave the business than disengaged employees. The code was supposed to be reviewed after
	a year. It has not been. There is strong evidence of widespread abuse of the code and of many companies choosing to ignore it.
	The Bill aims to do three things. First, it aims to set out clear measures on the distribution of tips and service charges, which are important in constituencies such as mine where the tourist trade is important. That is also true in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who are here today, where there are many hospitality workers on the minimum wage. The Bill would secure a proper process for the distribution of tips. I propose a model similar to the tronc model that exists for national insurance liabilities. Employees themselves will determine how tips and service charges are distributed in the business: if kitchen and bar staff are to get a share, that will be decided by the employees. That is not happening at the moment. Where troncs do exist, the policy is often determined by one person appointed by the management or business owner. We want a proper process in law that will allow employees to decide how tips will be distributed.
	Similarly, many businesses argue that there is an administration fee involved in collecting tips, particularly via credit cards. The Bill aims to set a maximum at which that percentage could be charged. Personally, I believe that there should be no percentage taken by the employer, but there is a view among some that they incur a cost in collection. Therefore, I would seek consultation on that matter. However, the Bill would provide a power to set the maximum percentage that can be taken by the employer.
	There are plenty of good examples out there—Pizza Hut, TGI Friday’s, Harvester, All Bar One and Toby Carvery, distribute 100% of tips to employees. Other national chains have not done that, including PizzaExpress, which sacked a waiter who revealed that it took an 8% admin fee, and Bella Italia, which took 10%. There are examples of businesses taking even more. In the more extreme cases, businesses are collecting tips but not distributing them to workers at all.
	The final element of the Bill would require the business to display its policy on tips and service charges so that the consumer is aware of exactly where the tip or service charge they pay will go and how it will be distributed. My local radio station, BBC Radio Humberside—I will give them a shout-out, thereby guaranteeing I will get on air again—did a vox pop on the issue this morning with the, I am sure you will agree Mr Speaker, sound people of Brigg. When asked their view on the issue, 100% agreed that tips should be distributed to the people they expected them to be distributed to—the workers in a business.
	Conservatives are often challenged on whether proposing new regulation is something we should be doing. It is not an un-Conservative principle to pass legislation that protects the consumer and employees and benefits employers. Under the Bill, a consumer who pays a tip or service charge will know where it is going, which is a key principle. When asked, most consumers have no idea how tips are distributed. The Bill will protect employees, many of whom are on the minimum wage. They can work at one restaurant one week and receive 100% of the tips and then go to another and receive none of the tips because there is no requirement for them to be distributed. For many people, particularly in constituencies
	such as mine, where wages are generally low and there are minimum wage jobs, the measure will provide a way to top up their incomes. It is not right for employers to be able to cream off a percentage of that.
	The Bill will be good for employers in a number of ways. Someone asked me the other day whether employers rely on that percentage to help their business. I am sorry, but employers’ profit margins should be built into the cost of the product, service or food that people are buying. A business should not exist because it is able to cream off service charges or tips. If there is a cost in that regard, there is an argument to be made in a consultation on the maximum amount that businesses should take.
	The Bill will also benefit employers in a different way because it will hopefully result in staff being more engaged. The Institute of Customer Service provided me with some interesting statistics from its research on the issue. It found, as I said earlier, that engaged employees deliver 43% more revenue, 87% are less likely to leave and 67% would advocate for their company. When employees considered themselves to be disengaged from their employer, only 3% said that they would advocate for them. The Bill will therefore be good for businesses, consumers and protect employees’ rights.
	I have been able to secure cross-party support for the Bill. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) in the Chamber, a near neighbour who supports the Bill. I hope that the House will give me leave to bring in the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Andrew Percy, Henry Smith, Diana Johnson, Andrew Stephenson, Nic Dakin, Mr Graham Stuart, Martin Vickers and Guto Bebb present the Bill.
	Andrew Percy accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October and to be printed (Bill 89).

Business of the House

Tom Brake: I beg to move,
	That at today’s sitting:
	(1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary Patrick McLouglin relating to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill not later than two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be put after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply; and
	(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business; the business may be entered upon after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
	Last Thursday, during the business statement, the Leader of the House announced that the House would today consider motions relating to the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill, a motion to approve the draft Legislative Reform (Clinical Commissioning Groups) Order 2014, and then opposed private business. The business motion before the House helps to control these proceedings today.
	The effect of passing the motion would be to allow two hours for the debate on both of the high speed rail Bill motions, which would be debated together. The clinical commissioning groups order motion is not included within the terms of the business motion as that motion will be subject to 90 minutes’ debate under Standing Orders. The business motion then allows up to three hours’ debate on the opposed private business, as well as allowing that business to start at any time.
	The motions relating to the high speed rail Bill have been on remaining orders since last Tuesday. The first amends the carry-over motion agreed by the House in April relating to the application of the electronic deposit of documents in this Session. The second is an instruction to the Select Committee considering the Bill to give it powers to consider amendments to accommodate the requirements of certain landowners and occupiers, utility undertakers and changes to the design of the works authorised in the Bill, as specified in the motion. Two hours would seem adequate to discuss these very specific procedural motions relating to the Bill. The business of the House motion also allows the opposed private business to be proceeded with at any hour and to last for three hours.
	I hope the House will agree that the business motion facilitates the business of the House in a sensible way and I commend the motion to the House.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that explanation of the business today? I am very grateful that he has explained why we have the business of the House in this order, but may I just say to him how grateful I am because today not only do I have an interest in HS2, but of course I have an interest in the opposed private business, which covers Buckinghamshire
	and the film industry in Buckinghamshire. Therefore, I am very grateful for the reordering of the business today which enables me to cover both debates in one sitting?

Mr Speaker: It is truly joyous for the House to see the right hon. Lady in such a happy frame of mind. May it long continue.
	Question put and agreed to.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

[Relevant documents: Ninth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2013-14, High speed rail: on track?, HC 851, andthe Government response, HC 1085Tenth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2010-12, High Speed Rail, HC 1185, and theGovernment response, HC 1754.]

Mr Speaker: Motions 3 and 4 on high-speed rail will be debated together.

Robert Goodwill: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 29 April 2014 (High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Carryover)) be varied as follows:
	After paragraph 10 of the Order insert–
	“10A. The Order of the House of 26 June 2013 relating to electronic deposit of documents shall apply in respect of a Bill presented as mentioned in paragraph 2 or 4 as in respect of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill read for the first time in the current Session.”

Mr Speaker: With this, we will take the following:
	That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is committed–
	(1) that the Select Committee have power to consider–
	(a) amendments to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers in:
	(i) the parishes of the Little Missenden, Great Missenden, Wendover, Stoke Mandeville, Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell, Quainton, Preston Bissett and Turweston in the County of Buckinghamshire,
	(ii) the parish of Finmere in the County of Oxfordshire,
	(iii) the parish of Chipping Warden and Edgcote in the County of Northamptonshire,
	(iv) the parish of Little Packington in the County of Warwickshire,
	(v) the parish of Berkswell in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull, and
	(vi) the City of Birmingham;
	(b) amendments to accommodate changes to the design of the works authorised by
	the Bill in:
	(i) the parishes of Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell, Fleet Marston, Steeple Claydon and Twyford in the County of Buckinghamshire,
	(ii) the parish of Mixbury in the County of Oxfordshire,
	(iii) the parishes of Culworth and Whitfield in the County of Northamptonshire,
	(iv) the parishes of Radbourne, Southam, Stoneleigh and Curdworth in the County of Warwickshire, and
	(v) the City of Birmingham;
	(c) amendments to accommodate the requirements of utility undertakers in:
	(i) the parishes of Denham, Wendover, Ellesborough, Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell, Quainton and Grendon Underwood and the town of Aylesbury in the County of Buckinghamshire,
	(ii) the parishes of Offchurch, Burton Green, Little Packington, Coleshill, Curdworth, Wishaw and Moxhull and Middleton in the County of Warwickshire,
	(iii) the parishes of Drayton Bassett, Hints with Canwell, Weeford, Swinfen and Packington, Fradley and Streethay, Longdon, Kings Bromley and Lichfield in the County of Staffordshire, and
	(iv) the parish of Bickenhill in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull, and amendments for connected purposes;
	(2) that any petition against amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee is empowered to make shall be referred to the Select Committee if–
	(a) the petition is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the amendments was published, and
	(b) the petition is one in which the petitioners pray to be heard by themselves or through counsel or agents.
	That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
	We are here to debate the merits of two motions: one instructing the HS2 Select Committee to consider 55 minor amendments to the Bill and to hear petitions against them, should there be any; the other to allow the documents relating to this additional provision and any other in the future to be deposited in electronic format.
	Before I deal with the merits of the motions, let me put them in context. The House will recall that in April it agreed, by a large majority, to give the hybrid Bill for phase 1 of High Speed 2 a Second Reading. The Bill provides the necessary powers to allow the construction and operation of phase 1 between London and the west midlands.
	On Second Reading, the House agreed the principle of the Bill, which is that there should be a high-speed railway that will run between Euston and the west coast main line in Handsacre in Staffordshire, with a spur to Curzon Street in Birmingham. There will be intermediate stations at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange, located near the NEC and Birmingham international airport.
	Following Second Reading, the Bill, as it is a hybrid, was remitted to a specially appointed Select Committee. This Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), is tasked with considering the petitions lodged against the Bill by those directly and specially affected by it, a task which it has already started with commendable diligence and good judgment, for which I thank it. Indeed, it is continuing its work in Committee Room 5 today.
	In parallel with this, and as a key part of the process, HS2 Ltd has been engaging further with those petitioners in order better to understand their concerns and determine whether these can be addressed without the need for them to appear before the Committee. This has proved successful with a number of petitioners, including Birmingham city council and Centro. As a result of some of those discussions and further developments in the design for the railway, we have identified the need to make 55 minor amendments to the Bill as originally deposited.
	The motion before the House sets out their broad location but, despite their minor nature, I think it would be useful to explain them in a little more detail. They are mainly changes to access tracks required to construct or maintain the railway and refinements to National Grid’s requirements for electricity wire diversions. For example, where a farmer has suggested that it would be better to route an access track over this field rather than that field, that change is included in this additional
	provision. Additional land is also included around some electricity pylons where National Grid’s requirements have been refined.
	These changes, in total, will not increase the overall project budget or target price for phase 1. Indeed, they are expected to cost slightly less than our original proposals. The estimate of expense for this additional provision, which will be published if this motion passes, sets out the total cost of these works at around £965,000. However, due to the prescriptive nature of this process, it does not set out the net position, which is, as I have already said, a slight saving.
	The first motion being debated today instructs the Committee to consider these amendments, and to hear petitions against them. It is important to note that the motion does not agree that these changes should be made; it just agrees that the Committee be allowed to consider them.
	Subject to the approval of this motion, the additional provision and a supplementary environmental statement describing the likely significant environmental effects of the amendments will be deposited in Parliament, and in local authority offices and libraries in those locations affected by the changes. Following deposit of these documents, a public consultation on the supplementary environmental statement will commence, which will close on 14 November. This consultation is 56 days long, in line with the approach taken for the main environmental statement and in excess of the minimum requirements in Standing Orders. As with the main environmental statement consultation, the responses to the consultation will be analysed by Parliament’s independent assessor and the assessor’s report will be tabled in the House ahead of Third Reading.
	There will also be a petitioning period for those directly and specially affected by these changes to submit petitions against them. This petitioning period will begin on Friday 19 September and end on 17 October for all petitioners.

Frank Dobson: The people now petitioning have already petitioned and paid their £20. Will they be able to petition without paying a further £20?

Robert Goodwill: Yes, they certainly will. Indeed, this is a “buy one, get one free” offer from this Government and I can reassure those who are affected and wish to petition that there will be that provision for a free opportunity.
	Newspaper notices will be published in national and local newspapers over the next two weeks, alerting the public to these changes and the opportunity to feed into the process by petitioning or responding to the consultation, as appropriate.
	The second motion before us confirms that the permission given by the House in July last year to deposit environmental and other information in relation to this Bill in electronic format applies to additional provisions as well. Electronic deposit of the Bill and related environmental information was an innovation welcomed by the public, as well as avoiding the need and cost of printing documents, a single set of which weighed 1.5 tonnes. I believe that it is only sensible that the same approach be taken for this additional provision
	and any subsequent ones that might come forward, although I hasten to add this will not be such a weighty document.
	As with the Bill deposit, the motion is permissive. It allows those locations where documents are to be deposited to choose whether they would like documents in electronic form only or also in hard copy. Many local authorities affected by these amendments have already indicated their preference for electronic format. A similar motion to this has already been endorsed in the other place.
	I hope that the House will agree that these are two very sensible motions to demonstrate the progress that this Government are making in transforming the country’s infrastructure and economic geography. It also demonstrates that we are doing this in the right way, listening to the concerns of those affected and, where possible, making changes to reduce impacts. I commend these motions to the House.

Lilian Greenwood: Before I move on to the detail of the motions before us, may I welcome the Minister back to his place? I know it has been a particularly busy couple of weeks in the Department for Transport, especially as Ministers from both parties race to catch up with Labour’s rail policies. First, we learned in The Times that the Liberal Democrats now apparently support a public sector operator, even though they have rushed through the privatisation of East Coast trains in this Parliament. Then we heard the Chancellor say that rail fares would be capped at the retail prices index in January, just three weeks after the Transport Secretary said that the policy would result in
	“more debt than our children and grandchildren could ever hope to repay.”
	Last year, the Chancellor waited until Christmas to say there would be a freeze. This year, the very next day he took it away. Evening rail fares rose yesterday in the north by up to 162%—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I have to say to the hon. Lady that one quip or joke is fine, but we are discussing motion No. 3 on the Order Paper and this is not a general debate. I therefore fear she might have to save her humour for another debate, and return to the motion please.

Lilian Greenwood: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry not to be able to continue to amuse the House.
	I am sure that while the Chancellor was busy with all his whatnots, Ministers were busy preparing these changes to the High-Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill this weekend so that it could be considered by the Bill Committee following the vote today. In April, the House endorsed the principle of building a new high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. The case for introducing more capacity is clear. Passenger numbers have doubled over the past 20 years; the railways are carrying the same number of passengers as they did in the 1920s on a network that is now half the size. Anyone who believes in encouraging the use of rail freight, in supporting modal shift and in tackling road congestion should want to see that growth continue. However, most of our
	alignments were built to serve Victorian service patterns, and many of our civil structures date back to the 19th century.
	The west coast main line, the vital rail artery connecting the north-west, the west midlands and London, is approaching the limits of its capacity. As many hon. Members will know, there are also growing capacity constraints on the east coast and midland main lines. This is no theoretical challenge. Our lack of capacity means that it is increasingly difficult to run more inter-city, freight and commuter services.
	Network Rail is being asked to deliver substantial investment over the next five years, but Railtrack’s legacy on the west coast main line is a powerful warning against relying on incremental upgrades. De-scoped, over-budget and over-time, the west coast modernisation project cost the taxpayer £9 billion pounds and delivered only a fraction of the capacity we need, and, just a few years after completion, that extra capacity has been exhausted. I know from speaking to the local authorities and hon. Members whose constituencies are on the route that they never wish to relive that experience. Of course we support electrification programmes and other route improvements, but after the Norton Bridge area works are completed, the options for upgrading the west coast main line further will be limited.
	A new approach is needed. The last Government developed the initial proposals for HS2, but after the election, some of the project’s momentum was sadly lost. Labour rightly drew attention to the project’s rising costs, and we went so far as to change the law to ensure better value for taxpayers’ money, through an amendment that stood in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). Indeed, Baroness Kramer has described the changes, in another place, as putting in place
	“a very vigorous reporting process under which the Government must report back annually and record any deviation from budget, and the consequences of that…which has put in place a very intense scrutiny process around the budget.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 November 2013; Vol. 749, c. 949.]
	Since his appointment, David Higgins has taken great strides to restore confidence in the project, and we welcome the renewed focus on connectivity and integration with the existing transport network, especially for phase 2 of the project. Of course there can be no room for complacency on costs. The phase 1 route of HS2 is currently being subjected to very close scrutiny, and it is inevitable that some changes will be made, both through the petitioning process and through agreements made directly with HS2 Ltd. The Minister estimated that those additional provisions would lead to a net saving, although he did not specify its exact level. Will he give us an estimate of the cost implications of the alterations announced today, and the net saving involved? I would be happy to take an intervention from him on this point.

Robert Goodwill: I can tell the hon. Lady that it is a small net saving; I am sure that the shadow Chancellor will not be able to spend it on all his uncosted pet projects.

Lilian Greenwood: It’s a laugh a minute today. The net saving is of course welcome. Will he also tell us, when he responds to the debate, when we can expect the first report on HS2’s initial expenditure, under the terms of the preparation Act?
	There are two motions before us today: the carry-over motion and the instruction motion to the Select Committee. The hybrid Bill is reckoned to be the longest piece of legislation ever produced, once the environmental statement is included. When the new documents published today are included, it will have broken its own record. It is therefore right that the provisions for the electronic depositing of Bill documents should continue, although there should also continue to be a number of specified sites where residents can consult physical copies.
	The instruction motion requires the Committee to consider a number of alterations to the route, which take the form of additional provisions. The additional provisions published by the Department cover a range of recommendations, from the location of balancing ponds and the preservation of public rights of way to the maintenance of golf course car parks. They mainly affect the constituencies of Government Members and I shall do my best to finish my speech in a timely fashion, because I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak.
	It must be noted, however, that these provisions cover the end of phase 1 in Lichfield and Birmingham Curzon Street to Hillingdon, but no further. I am mindful of the many contributions made in the House by London colleagues, especially those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who I note is in his place today. It is vital that, when future additional provisions are brought forward, those areas should be given at least equal consideration to the local authorities affected by the proposals.

Andy Slaughter: As a London MP who is majorly affected by HS2, I echo what my hon. Friend has just said. I wish that the Minister had mentioned London in his speech. I know that it is not the subject of the motions, but will he look again at the subject of the compensation for London being adequate and commensurate with that being given to the rest of the country? I have just had details of a brand-new part of the rail link dumped on me today, as an afterthought, in the form of a letter. If there are to be significant changes, proper notice must be given to Members of Parliament and residents, and a full consultation must be carried out. That is not happening at the moment.

Lilian Greenwood: My hon. Friend speaks on behalf of his constituents, who will be particularly affected by the proposals for Old Oak Common.
	In the area around Euston station in particular, considerable uncertainty has been caused by revisions to the designs for HS2’s London terminus. Three times now, alternative plans for Euston have been presented. Local residents deserve better.

Robert Goodwill: I should like to reassure the hon. Lady. I had lunch with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) the other day and saw some of the issues at first hand. Indeed, I think we got a freebie from the restaurateur; we should find out whether we need to declare it. Similar changes are being progressed in the London area, and they will be brought forward when other changes in London, such as the HS1 link removal, are ready to be brought forward, so that
	impacts such as those on transport can be considered in the round. I remind the House that the changes being debated today were communicated to landowners and to others who might be affected, including Members of Parliament, back in May.

Lilian Greenwood: I thank the Minister for that response, particularly in relation to Euston.
	It is to be hoped that we will see confirmation before the election that the additional provisions mechanism can be used to resolve some of the long-standing mitigation issues in Euston. We do not object to the principle of making changes to the Bill in this manner. After all, Parliament has already voted to remove the unsatisfactory link to HS1 that was included in the original wording of the Bill. It is likely that further refinements will be made as the Bill progresses through Parliament. However, it is important that these changes are seen not as a final draft but rather as proposals that must be subjected to full scrutiny and a proper consultation period. When there are objections—as there might be, given the changes to land requirements set out in the additional provisions—those petitioners must be heard on the same basis as those who have already started to appear before the Bill Committee. I look forward to further improvements to the scheme.
	HS2 is the right project, and it can be improved further. On 1 October, we will mark the 50th anniversary of the first Shinkansen service. The date is perhaps unlikely to be celebrated in this country, except in specialist publications, but it will be a rather sobering reminder that high-speed trains were running abroad when many parts of the UK were still reliant on steam locomotives. High-speed rail is a proven technology, and it has been proven in this country. I recently saw for myself the benefits that HS1 has helped to bring to Kent, including the greatly improved journey times and the connections that allow fast services to radiate out from the core high-speed line. HS2 must similarly be fully integrated with the existing network, and that issue that will no doubt be revisited in David Higgins’s upcoming report.
	HS2 should also be seen as an opportunity for utilising the skills gained through the Crossrail project, for training a new generation of highly skilled construction engineers and railway operators and for supporting the 120,000 jobs in the UK’s supply chain. To that end, we want to see a copy of the Government’s long-promised jobs and skills strategy for HS2.

Simon Burns: The hon. Lady is making an extremely interesting speech. She called for HS2 to be part of an integrated system with the existing conventional railway line. Will she elaborate a little on how she sees that being possible?

Lilian Greenwood: I thank the—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Not on this motion. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to have a conversation with the hon. Lady outside the Chamber, but she will talk only about motion No. 3 from the Dispatch Box, please.

Lilian Greenwood: I will take your direction, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Overall, we want the railways to support regional development, connect isolated communities and help deliver the balanced economic growth that this country needs. We want to build 21st-century infrastructure in the midlands and the north, not just in London and the south-east, and we will continue to support HS2 as the necessary legislation, including these motions, progresses through Parliament.

Cheryl Gillan: I welcome the Minister’s opening statement on these motions, but may I issue a word of warning? When I hear a politician say, “Buy one, get one free”, the other phrase that comes to mind is, “Always beware of politicians bearing gifts”. Innocuous though this matter seems, I am not sure that the Minister can get away without answering a few questions. I have no intention of dividing the House as this is a technical matter referring changes to the Select Committee, so for those who are in any doubt may I say that I do not intend to cause too much of a fuss but I do intend to comment?
	We find ourselves back in this Chamber once again with the Government asking colleagues to vote on matters relating to HS2. I recall that the previous time the Government asked MPs to vote on this project, we did so in the absence of the Major Projects Authority report, which identifies the risks of the project. That is still unavailable to MPs and to the very Select Committee to which the new changes are being referred. I reiterate that it is not fair to ask the Select Committee to evaluate the changes, or any of the other proposals being made by HS2 Ltd, in the absence of the full MPA set of reports identifying the risks we are taking with this project.
	I was surprised that more detail was not available on the changes before we arrived in this place. The Minister was good enough to send me details of the one change that affects my constituency. However, 20 out of the 55 changes affect Buckinghamshire, and issuing the list I had sent to me at 1.30 pm today does not give colleagues, particularly those who are not able to make representations in the same way as I am, an opportunity to study the detailed changes.

Robert Goodwill: My right hon. Friend will recall that the Secretary of State wrote to her on 2 May with details of the change in her constituency, and other right hon. and hon. Members, both Government and Opposition, were contacted in the same way.

Cheryl Gillan: I am glad to have the Minister’s reassurance; that is not exactly how I understood it from my colleagues, but I will take his word for it. Having looked at the list, I find that I have one minor change in my constituency, which accommodates a footpath change at the request of my local landowner Mr Lund. I hope it accommodates his request in full, and I repeat that I was grateful to the Minister for providing details to me. However, I am not sure that details of the changes in other parts of Buckinghamshire have been communicated to my colleagues, because when I spoke to people in their offices I was told that the details that were made available in the list that arrived in my office at 1.30 pm had not been made available to Members or their staff, so no comments on the changes could be fed into the debate.
	As the Minister knows, several of the changes require a permanent acquisition of land to provide services or access for HS2.

Graham Stringer: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way, and she is always generous with her time. This is a poor show, because this debate was in the business statement announced to the House on Thursday afternoon. Will she name her Conservative colleagues who cannot be bothered to turn up to represent their constituents?

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman mistakes what I mean. Several Members of this House who serve as Ministers or in other positions of responsibility are unable to express, directly on the Floor of the House, the views of their constituents. I am sometimes permitted to make points on their behalf and at their request, which is usually the way we accommodate such matters, as he knows.

Michael Fabricant: At the moment, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), for example, is in Committee discussing the Modern Slavery Bill, where there might be votes. I know that he would otherwise very much wish to be here for the debate.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) knows that he was a little naughty with his intervention. He was trying to make people look bad, and this is not a time to do that. I can honestly say that all my colleagues, on both sides of the House, are fighting the corner for our constituents and trying to put their point across. The sort of point the hon. Gentleman makes is not particularly welcome.

Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that not just constituents who live on the proposed line of route but almost all constituents, including mine, are concerned about the enormous bill to the British taxpayer, to which they will have to contribute if this Bill goes through?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The costs of the project are a matter of concern right across the board and to all Members. Hon. Members ought to bear in mind that today the Minister has brought savings to the Dispatch Box—[Interruption.] He indicates to me that they are minute savings, but we know that size is not everything—savings are important. I hope that will go some way to showing that Ministers’ eyes are open at least to looking at cost savings ideas. I hope that they will be open to looking at other savings, not just monetary ones.

Robert Goodwill: May I point out that there is not only a small saving but considerable improvement for my right hon. Friend’s constituent Mr Lund? Although I would not go so far as to say he is pleased to see the change, it is certainly an improvement on what was there before. May I remind the House that although we wrote in May to Members with details of the changes in their constituencies, we sent them an additional copy of the letter this morning, in case they had missed the earlier one? We have also tabled documents before the House
	so that any other right hon. or hon. Member who wishes to look at the detailed changes, on moving electricity pylons, rights of way and so on, can see what is before the House today. Nobody can be in any doubt about what we are discussing today.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister for that. It was good of him to send the letter that he said was sent to me on 2 May. In his original letter to me he said it was sent on 1 May and we were looking in the wrong place, although I still have no record in my office of having received the letter on 2 May. That is just a small point of no real importance; this was just poor staff work.
	I would like to know when the map books are going to be available—I believe 17 are affected—showing the changes, with the list of affected owners. I understand that they are not yet available, so will the Minister confirm when they will be published? When exactly will the notices and the newspaper advertisements be placed? I am willing to give way to allow him to answer that.

Robert Goodwill: They will be available on Wednesday—tomorrow.

Cheryl Gillan: If they are available on Wednesday, that raises the question of why they could not have been available in time for this debate. The Minister is obviously not going to allow us to have the detail until after this debate, and we have to put up with that.

Robert Goodwill: The purpose of today’s motion is to facilitate the depositing of the maps. That is why we are doing so on the first possible opportunity, should we get the consent of the House today, which is tomorrow.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification, but it would have been helpful if the map books had been available to Members before the debate.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) was also concerned that he had not yet been given details of the proposals. Let me make a small point. It is hard for Members of Parliament to allay people’s fears or make the relevant representations if we do not have the details at the earliest opportunity. I am sure that some of the proposed changes will be welcomed—I certainly hope so. Sadly, the only change that my constituents want is the adoption of a longer tunnel under the area of outstanding natural beauty. That would save the violation of our so-called protected environment and the Committee Members to whom these changes are being committed some 550 petition hearings, which have been lined up because of the lack of support for the long tunnel so far.
	Like the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), I am willing to offer the Minister a freebie lunch in Chesham and Amersham if he visits to look at the environment, the countryside and the grief that would be saved if the longer tunnel, which I understand is being considered by the Department, is accepted. I know that it is currently being studied by the engineering teams at HS2, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that any future changes from HS2 Ltd, which he mentioned in his letter of 28 August, will include the tunnel extension.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Will she confirm that it is a matter of regret that there is no agreement on the costs between HS2 and the promoters of the extended tunnel? Surely it should be possible for rational engineers, albeit from different sides of the argument, to reach a conclusion over the additional costs of a tunnel.

Cheryl Gillan: I think that engineers are talking to engineers. With the help of the Department, I have certainly facilitated meetings at which the tunnel has been discussed. The problem is that we do not have access to the costings prepared by HS2 Ltd, so we cannot make any comparisons. The truth of the matter is that we can make savings in time and money by reducing the need for those 550 petitions and we can save an area of outstanding natural beauty. If we can protect other areas of the country by kicking up a fuss, we should protect the one that is nearest to our capital city and the one that is so fragile that it would be irreparably damaged if this scheme were to go ahead as currently envisaged.
	The office of the right hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) is also concerned that uncertainty still exists for its constituents. During the last petitioning period, it came to light that some people who were affected by the proposal had heard nothing from HS2 Ltd. They heard about their properties being affected only by word of mouth from neighbours. All of us in this House wish to hear that such behaviour will not be repeated in this or any future case.
	Following this debate, there will be a consultation on the environmental statement for the additional provisions running from 19 September to 14 November. However, the petitioning period for those who are affected runs only until 17 October. If 56 days have been allocated to look at the environmental impacts, people whose land is affected should not be disadvantaged and expected to respond with a petition in a shorter time frame. Will the Minister consider extending that petitioning period to the same closing date as the consultation on the environmental provisions?
	Let me put this matter in context. This project has been going for nearly five years, and because of errors and omissions by HS2 and the Department there have been so many consultations and so many changes to periods of consultations that the closing dates and timetables continue to confuse people. It would be a good idea if we had just one date for the additional provisions. I hope that the Minister will give that thought some consideration.
	What assessment has the Minister made of today’s motions and their compliance with key aspects of European environmental legislation, specifically the habitats directive and the environmental impact assessment directive, and the UK’s obligations under the Aarhus convention? As I understand it, the EIA directive requires the entire environmental effects of a project to be measured and consulted on rather than it being done in individual stages through salami slicing. Perhaps the Minister will address that in his response.
	I said that I have no intention of dividing the House on this issue as it deals merely with changes to the process for scrutinising the project, but I must again make the point that this project as proposed is deeply unpopular not just with my constituents but with many
	others who, like me, do not think that the business case, the route and the lack of connectivity to other transport hubs justify the vast expenditure.

Michael Fabricant: May I say how much I agree with the point that my right hon. Friend has made? Is she aware that if HS2 were to follow the route that we supported as the party in opposition, there would be less environmental damage and we would save £4 billion to £8 billion in costs?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend has long supported the other route. Before the election, it was the other route that was on the drawing board. Something happened when the coalition came into power that changed the original understanding that we all had. The Government still have time to look at this in a different way, and I urge them to start this project in the north and connect our great northern cities and then revisit these plans to make better connections to Heathrow and the channel tunnel and of course to provide the extra tunnelling, should it still apply, that would protect the environment in the Chilterns to the highest standards.
	I am afraid that, after five years, feelings still run really high in my constituency. This week, the Buckinghamshire Examiner says that HS2 will cost the Chilterns £170 million. Chiltern district council has done a study of what the costs of this project will be to my local economy in my constituency. I hope the Minister will understand the damage that will be done to the Chilterns and that he will consider my words yet again.

Frank Dobson: The debate this afternoon strikes me as rather strange, as we are being asked to give the existing Select Committee power to consider amendments that we have not seen, which is fairly unusual in the House of Commons. If we are asked to agree to some amendment, we have usually had the opportunity to read and digest them and possibly to consult other people about them. The environmental statements are apparently ready but will not be issued until tomorrow, leaving us to proceed in ignorance. They will contain all the details. When people are considering the impact on their homes, businesses, schools or leisure provision, it is the detail that counts.

Robert Goodwill: I must make it clear that the House is being asked not to approve the changes, but to allow the Committee to consider the changes and for petitions to be submitted to help them in that work.

Frank Dobson: I understand that, but if we had the detail, the House might decide that some amendments are so blindingly stupid that they should not be referred to the Select Committee in the first place. It remains the case that we are being asked to endorse these propositions without having seen them. Six groups of changes are, it is claimed, in response to the requirements of local people; four of them are in response to requirements of the public utilities; and five are for “minor changes of design” and—these are the magic words—“connected purposes”. What we are being asked to push through is not quite as specific as has been suggested.

Michael Fabricant: Following the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made, does a blank cheque come to mind?

Frank Dobson: Pretty much, yes, although I am opposed to the daft £20 billion cheque in the first place, and have been all along.
	What bothers me, besides the famous “connected purposes” let out, is that we are also told:
	“That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.”
	According to HS2, the changes we are considering—or not really considering—this afternoon are minor, and we are placing this procedure within the Standing Orders of the House so that we have a sort of modern precedent for the Clerks to rely on if challenged. What concerns me is that the proposals that will eventually be made for the Euston part of my constituency cannot be considered as minor by anyone on earth.

Caroline Spelman: On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about minor design changes, the same term is used in a letter written to me by the Department on 2 May. It cites three “minor changes”, which are in fact significant land acquisitions—at a National Grid sub-station; in the diversion of the Kenilworth greenway; and through provision of additional car parking at the national motorcycle museum. There is no indication in that letter of how compensation schemes would affect those lands, which are significantly outside the present qualifying area. Like him, I think that some of these minor changes seem quite significant to the landowners.

Frank Dobson: The right hon. Lady’s point simply emphasises how the detail is important. With Euston, however, it is not a matter of detail. The current proposal that the House voted through has been abandoned. In fact, it was abandoned before the House voted it through. The situation is utterly crazy. The proposition included in the Bill was basically to build a rather elegant lean-to engine shed at the west side of the existing Euston station, so most of the concern and the emphasis and the source of petitions have been from people, homes and businesses to the west of the station. The proposition now is to abandon that and demolish the whole of the existing Euston station, which will clearly take longer and extend the impact. More time will be required because of the increase in scale and the impact on businesses and people living to the east of the station will massively increase.

Andy Slaughter: I share my right hon. Friend’s pain about the shifting sands. The letter to which I referred earlier, which I received today, invites me to a meeting this Sunday at which I will have
	“an opportunity to learn more about a possible new rail link that has been proposed and how it might affect you. The new line would connect the planned HS2 and Crossrail interchange station at Old Oak Common with the West Coast Main Line.”
	That might be very desirable—in fact, I thought it was happening already—but it suddenly introduces a new railway line that skirts around a few streets on the edge of my constituency. The picture changes every day, the consultation becomes redundant and we move to another phase.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman might consider making his observations in an Adjournment debate. They are not directly relevant to the two motions we are discussing today, as far as I am aware, but he has put them on the record.

Frank Dobson: Although I understand the concerns of people who are directly affected by the propositions that are not quite before us this afternoon, my principal concern is the application of the Standing Orders to what is proposed and likely to be proposed at Euston, which will be the biggest building and engineering project in Britain for many a long year. Its impact will be phenomenal and I believe that it is wholly inappropriate for the Government to try to use such a procedure to push through changes on that scale and with such an impact.

Cheryl Gillan: I am increasingly worried about the process. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) just said that in her letter she had been informed that four sites were subject to these additional provisions and changes, but the document issued to me at 1.30 today shows only two changes for Meriden. That reinforces the fact that there is a lack of clarity about the detail and there seems to be some confusion about what changes are being referred to the Committee. With a project of this size, we cannot afford such discrepancy.

Frank Dobson: Again, I sympathise with the right hon. Lady, because nowhere has been subjected to the absolutely stupendous incompetence of HS2 more than my constituency. HS2 proposed a link with HS1. Everyone said that that was crackers, HS2 said it was wonderful and then it had to drop it. HS2 proposed the lean-to engine shed proposal. Lots of people said that that was crackers, HS2 said it was the only thing it would be possible to do and that it would be extraordinarily expensive to have a full development of the whole station—and lo and behold, that is what is now being proposed. No apology has been issued to anyone, as far as I know, for this stupendous incompetence and ridiculousness. I understand that when an environmental statement is eventually issued, the consultation period will run concurrently with the petitioning period. That seems to me to be extremely unfair.
	Let me explain the difference in scale between what is being formulated now and what is in the Bill. The works at Euston in the Bill were going to cost £2 billion, but HS2 let slip at meetings that it is now thinking in terms of £7 billion. Even a fellow Yorkshireman like the Minister would admit that that is a few bob more. It is people with that grasp of reality who are behind this scheme. In addition, and in a further source of perturbation for my constituents, HS2 now says that the new Euston, when finally completed and in operation, would not be able to cope with the increased number of passengers without the building of Crossrail 2 to help take passengers to and from Euston, at an additional cost of £20 billion. Will that be included in the new environmental statement and will it be subject to petitioning?

Robert Goodwill: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that none of the provisions we are considering relates to Euston or the part of the line around there, as they refer merely to the parishes?

Frank Dobson: The point that I am trying to make to the Minister—and to anyone else who cares to listen—is that we are being asked to endorse the approach set out by the Government by incorporating it in Standing Orders of the House. That could be taken as a precedent that such a procedure may apply to the massive changes at Euston, not just to the important but none the less much smaller changes in the parishes and towns to which the instruction motion refers. It is therefore perfectly legitimate for me to express my concerns about the threat to my constituents. That is what I was elected to do, and it is what I propose to continue doing.

Robert Goodwill: With the leave of the House, I shall touch on several points raised during the debate.
	I can tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) that the people along the line of route who are affected by the changes are aware of them. The changes are minor. The process has been described as a tidying-up exercise, although I recall the previous Government describing the treaty of Lisbon as a tidying-up exercise, so I should not go too far down that road. Of the 55 changes overall, there are 21 changes to access tracks, most of which, including the change in her constituency, are a result of discussions with farmers about developing preferable approaches. Some 20 areas of land will be required, mostly temporarily, so that National Grid can undertake works to rewire pylons. Three areas of land will be required temporarily for works to pipelines, while a further three areas are needed due to minor amendments for the laying of roads. There will be eight other changes, including with regard to car parking provision at the national motorcycle museum in the parish of Hampton-in-Arden.

Cheryl Gillan: Why did that change not appear to be included in the list about the additional provision that was given to me at 1.30pm?

Robert Goodwill: It might be that just the parishes were listed, not the actual works, but I understand that the documentation laid before the House did include that—[Interruption.] Indeed, I have been passed a bit of paper that might well reassure the hon. Members. I am told that the changes relating to the motorcycle museum site are no longer being brought forward as a result of negotiations, so I must apologise to the House if the information was incorrect.
	Such issues will be the subject of petitions that may be laid before the Select Committee. I believe that the petitioning period is adequate, especially given the limited scope of the changes. I underline that, at all times, we will seek to comply with all our obligations under EU and domestic legislation.
	Many of the changes will be welcomed by landowners and people in the relevant areas. They have arisen partly as a result of our continuing negotiations with those affected by the building of HS2, and it is important that we ensure that people’s views are taken into account.
	We need to look at the overall picture, and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) referred to changes that may take place in his constituency. We are aware not only of the permanent changes that will arise due to the line’s construction, especially to the
	station itself, but of how businesses in the area might be affected due to the construction. I spent an enjoyable lunchtime eating a meal with the right hon. Gentleman in one of the area’s Bangladeshi restaurants, and I understood precisely the worries of the owners about the erection of building hoardings in the area, which might make it difficult for the restaurant’s usual clientele to access the site.

Frank Dobson: But the point—I have clearly failed to make it—is that that area is to the west of the station, but there will now be similar problems to the east of the station.

Robert Goodwill: Sir David Higgins is considering how we can best capitalise on the tremendous opportunity that Euston station presents as part of the project. Those of us who remember what the area around King’s Cross station was like a number of years ago will understand how it has been transformed. Indeed, the station itself has become a destination in its own right, and people often spend time in that area. We can capitalise on the opportunity at Euston, but I understand that people will be severely affected during the transformation process, so we need to do what we can to minimise the impact on them.

Frank Dobson: David Higgins is apparently incapable of distinguishing between the land around the stations. The redevelopment at King’s Cross took place on useless, empty, brownfield railway land; the land on both sides of Euston station is not brownfield land to be rescued by some Australian missionary, but a place where people live, go about their business and send their children to school, and somewhere people go to old folks’ luncheon clubs. They want to continue to do that; they do not want the area levelled as part of some grandiose redevelopment scheme that everyone can think is wonderful. I speak as someone who has strongly supported redevelopment at Euston and was the first person to advocate using St Pancras station as the terminus for the channel tunnel link, so I do not need to take any lessons from anyone, but the same situation does not apply at Euston—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was making an intervention, not a second speech—although it did sound a bit like one.

Robert Goodwill: I would be the last person in the world to try to argue that I know better than the right hon. Gentleman about the concerns and aspirations of the people in the area around Euston station. Indeed, when he and I met, we were joined by Sarah Hayward, the leader of Camden council—I have to admit that I am a little frightened of her—who set out similar concerns in no uncertain terms. Indeed, I am pleased that we have managed to secure social housing provision to replace some of the housing that will need to be demolished.

Caroline Spelman: On the subject of the motion, I thank the Minister for the clarification about pieces of land in my constituency that now will not be needed for the project, but can he assure me, in the presence of the Chair of the Select Committee hearing the petitions, that the Select Committee members will be absolutely
	clear about the changes, the pieces of land coming in and out of the project, before they make the visits to the sites, as the Select Committee is to do in my constituency next Tuesday?

Robert Goodwill: I know my right hon. Friend is aware that negotiations are ongoing with landowners and others to try to mitigate the impact of the project on individuals. Indeed, we are determined to ameliorate—I was tempted to use the term “head off”—petitions that are being laid, to ensure that they will not necessarily need to appear before the Committee. I think it is a good part of this dynamic process that a petition can be raised to alert us to particular concerns, so that we can try to address those concerns. Many of the provisions before us today are made in response to petitions. I am interested to know what consideration has been made in relation to the national motorcycle museum. Until very recently indeed, we intended to provide alternative car parking, so I shall make a point of finding out what the solution to that problem is.
	I know that the two remaining changes in my right hon. Friend’s constituency are, first, in the parish of Berkswell, where there will be a temporary diversion of the Kenilworth Greenway, which will be realigned following discussions with stakeholders; and secondly, in the parish of Bickenhill, where there will be a requirement to oversail property to construct overhead lines, which is a minimal impact on the area.
	Returning to Euston, I am determined to ensure that we do all we can to make sure that customers can still reach businesses that may be affected by the construction work.

John Randall: Although my constituency is not affected by the provisions before the House, there is a great deal of solidarity between those who have this wretched line going through or under our constituencies. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister realises that although just one right hon. Member might be affected, we do actually share his concerns.

Robert Goodwill: As a regular user of the Tea Room, I am in no doubt as to the strength of feeling up and down the line of route.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) might inadvertently have misled the House by saying that only one person might be concerned. In fact, many people are concerned. He may wish to put the record straight.

Dawn Primarolo: No, I am sure he does not wish to put the record straight. I do not think that was a point of order, or that it could possibly be the interpretation of what the right hon. Gentleman said—[Interruption.] Indeed, I think it is a case of beard solidarity, as he is pointing out.

Robert Goodwill: I think we have digressed from the subject of the debate. Yes, there are concerned people, not least those who seek to replace my right hon. Friend as the Member of Parliament for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. No doubt a number will express their views during the selection process. I am pleased that we have a tunnel under that constituency.
	I commend the motions to the House. I believe that the provisions will give the Committee the opportunity to listen to any additional petitions, and I am sure the House will be content to approve the motions.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the Order of 29 April 2014 (High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Carry-over)) be varied as follows:
	After paragraph 10 of the Order insert–
	“10A. The Order of the House of 26 June 2013 relating to electronic deposit of documents shall apply in respect of a Bill presented as mentioned in paragraph 2 or 4 as in respect of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill read for the first time in the current Session.”

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL: INSTRUCTION (NO. 2)

Resolved,
	That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is committed–
	(1) that the Select Committee have power to consider–
	(a) amendments to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers in:
	(i) the parishes of the Little Missenden, Great Missenden, Wendover, Stoke Mandeville, Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell, Quainton, Preston Bissett and Turweston in the County of Buckinghamshire,
	(ii) the parish of Finmere in the County of Oxfordshire,
	(iii) the parish of Chipping Warden and Edgcote in the County of Northamptonshire,
	(iv) the parish of Little Packington in the County of Warwickshire,
	(v) the parish of Berkswell in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull, and
	(vi) the City of Birmingham;
	(b) amendments to accommodate changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill in:
	(i) the parishes of Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell, Fleet Marston, Steeple Claydon and Twyford in the County of Buckinghamshire,
	(ii) the parish of Mixbury in the County of Oxfordshire,
	(iii) the parishes of Culworth and Whitfield in the County of Northamptonshire,
	(iv) the parishes of Radbourne, Southam, Stoneleigh and Curdworth in the County of Warwickshire, and
	(v) the City of Birmingham;
	(c) amendments to accommodate the requirements of utility undertakers in:
	(i) the parishes of Denham, Wendover, Ellesborough, Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell, Quainton and Grendon Underwood and the town of Aylesbury in the County of Buckinghamshire,
	(ii) the parishes of Offchurch, Burton Green, Little Packington, Coleshill, Curdworth, Wishaw and Moxhull and Middleton in the County of Warwickshire,
	(iii) the parishes of Drayton Bassett, Hints with Canwell, Weeford, Swinfen and Packington, Fradley and Streethay, Longdon, Kings Bromley and Lichfield in the County of Staffordshire, and
	(iv) the parish of Bickenhill in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull, and amendments for connected purposes;
	(2) that any petition against amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee is empowered to make shall be referred to the Select Committee if–
	(a) the petition is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the amendments was published, and
	(b) the petition is one in which the petitioners pray to be heard by themselves or through counsel or agents.
	That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— (Mr Goodwill.)

Regulatory Reform

Norman Lamb: I beg to move,
	That the draft Legislative Reform (Clinical Commissioning Groups) order 2014, which was laid before this House on 13 March 2014, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
	The draft legislative reform order seeks to amend the National Health Service Act 2006 in two ways. First, it will allow clinical commissioning groups to form a joint committee when exercising their commissioning functions jointly. The 2006 Act already allows two or more CCGs to exercise their commissioning functions jointly, but makes no provision for them to do so via a joint committee. Secondly, it will allow CCGs to exercise their commissioning functions jointly with NHS England and to form a joint committee when doing so. The Act already allows NHS England and CCGs jointly to exercise an NHS England function and to do so by way of a joint committee, but it makes no provision for them jointly to exercise a CCG function.
	This draft order has already been scrutinised by the Regulatory Reform Committee, and I was pleased with its recommendation that it be approved under the affirmative resolution procedure.
	I should say from the outset that the proposed arrangements are voluntary. One party cannot impose the arrangements on another. This allows CCGs to retain their autonomy and to continue to make decisions that are in the best interests of their local populations. They can decide whether to enter a joint committee arrangement with other CCGs. At the moment, the lack of provision for CCGs to form joint committees is placing a burden on CCGs and preventing them from working in the most effective and efficient way. Without the power to form joint committees, CCGs have had to find other means of reaching joint decisions that are binding. That means that they often end up seeking legal advice to ensure that they are on a firm footing, and that adds to cost and complexity without a proper process in place.
	As an interim measure, therefore, some CCGs are forming committees in common whereby a number of CCGs may each appoint a representative to such a committee. Those representatives then meet, and any decisions reached are taken back to their respective CCGs for ratification. This leads to additional costs in terms of people’s time in sitting on multiple committees, administrative resources, and extra financial cost. Clearly, such arrangements are burdensome, particularly when compared with the simplicity of a joint committee. Primary care trusts, the predecessors of CCGs, were able to form joint committees at which all participating PCTs were bound by the decisions reached, subject to the terms of reference of that committee.

Graham Stringer: The Minister’s advice that all the members of a committee acting in common have to report back is at odds with the letter from the Department of Health to a committee dated 8 April 2014, where part of its case is that decisions have to be taken unanimously. That is quite different from having to report back, and it undermines his case about the administrative burden.

Norman Lamb: Currently, because there is no provision for a joint committee, the participating CCGs have to enter into some sort of arrangement that allows them, under their constitutional arrangements, to approve whatever plan of action is discussed and agreed at the committee in common. There could be a process for each CCG to delegate responsibility to the person attending the committee in common to take the decision at the committee on a unanimous basis, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Alternatively, there could be an arrangement whereby they have to go back to their own CCG and then have a further committee meeting to endorse the proposal that has been discussed at the committee in common. However it is done, it adds complexity and additional cost to the process. It does not stop anything happening; it just makes it more complicated than it has to be.
	As I said, such arrangements can be burdensome. Primary care trusts, the predecessors of CCGs, were able to form joint committees at which participating PCTs were bound by the decisions reached. We therefore want to allow CCGs—I stress that we are allowing them, not imposing anything on them, and it is entirely up to them to decide whether they want to participate—a route through which they can take decisions in a properly constituted forum when they are collaborating with other CCGs.
	Similarly, the lack of any power for CCGs to exercise their functions jointly with NHS England is causing inflexibility. NHS England and CCGs may wish to act jointly to commission better out-of-hospital services, for example. Making sure that services are integrated around the needs of the patient is the best way of ensuring that care is provided in a safe and compassionate way that most benefits the person involved.
	Sometimes there are issues that straddle the commissioning responsibilities of NHS England—the specialised end of the commissioning spectrum—and the responsibilities of the local CCG, and it seems to me that it is worth trying to secure joint working on both sides of that divide in the most effective way possible. The amendment would allow CCGs and NHS England, as co-commissioners, to develop and agree strategic plans and delivery processes that take into account the effects of services across the whole pathway—from specialist to local commissioning—supporting design and continuity of services across primary, secondary and community care.
	For example, CCGs and NHS England may wish to review service delivery across specialised services commissioned by NHS England and any impact a redesign may have on non-specialised acute services commissioned by CCGs, in order for services to be designed and delivered to achieve the best possible outcome for the population served. The inability of NHS England and CCGs to jointly exercise a CCG function, and to form a joint committee when doing so, makes it more difficult to make timely decisions, which can delay the ability to improve patient safety. The proposed amendments will encourage the formation of new commissioning partnerships, allowing the most effective approach to be used.
	When CCGs agree to form a joint committee, they will have the freedom to agree terms of reference, including voting arrangements. They could, therefore, agree between them to allow decisions to be reached by a majority.
	Equally, however, if a CCG wants to be absolutely sure that there would be no adverse effect on the area it serves, it could, as part of the agreement to enter the joint committee, require unanimity before anything is approved. This will not dilute the emphasis on local decision making.
	It is important that patients, members of the public and other stakeholders are able to see how joint committees operate and, in particular, how decisions are made. CCGs must specify in their constitutions the arrangements made for the discharge of their functions and for ensuring that there is transparency about the group’s decisions and the manner in which they are made. That applies whether CCGs are discharging their functions individually or as part of a joint committee with other CCGs.
	CCGs already have a duty to involve patients and the public in plans and decisions about commissioning arrangements. This involvement can be by way of consultation, by the provision of information or in other ways. We would still expect CCGs to make suitable arrangements to make sure that that duty is complied with when exercising their functions in a joint committee. In other words, the duty is exactly the same: arrangements for public involvement apply equally to decisions made by CCGs in a joint committee as they do to those made by CCGs individually. There is no reason why decisions taken in joint committees should be any less transparent than any decisions taken individually. The creation of joint committees would enable CCGs to take binding decisions without the need for separate ratification of complicated delegation structures.
	CCGs are still accountable as individual organisations—they do not lose that by entering a joint committee. Joint arrangements mean that each CCG is still liable for the exercise of its commissioning functions, even where they are being exercised jointly with another CCG or with NHS England. To be clear: joint working does not abrogate a CCG of their responsibilities as a statutory, independent and accountable organisation. The proposed arrangements will not lead to reconfiguration by the back door; they will not affect the existing processes, the tests that any significant service redesign needs to follow or the role of the overview and scrutiny committee locally.
	The proposed amendments build on existing powers by giving CCGs greater flexibility and control in the way they work. They return, in a sense, to the arrangements that were in place with primary care trusts. The changes will support more effective and efficient joint working and allow discussions about service redesign to take place across the local health economy. As CCGs become more established organisations, they need to have more flexibility to work together and with NHS England. In any commissioning structure, there will always be some decisions that need to be taken locally and some that span a wider population.

Liz Kendall: The draft order makes important changes, so I welcome the fact that we can debate it properly on the Floor of the House. Hon. Members will forgive me if I say that the reason we are here today is to try to clear up yet another problem
	created by the Government’s NHS reorganisation and by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which will go down in the annals of parliamentary history as one of the worst pieces of legislation this House has ever seen.

Richard Fuller: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Liz Kendall: No. I will make some progress. The hon. Gentleman may want to listen to what the Secretary of State for Health admitted in a letter to the chair of Healthwatch England on 11 August:
	“The Health and Social Care Act, when it established CCGs, did not make provision for CCGs to form joint committees and other CCGs. PCTs previously had this provision in legislation and many formed joint committees to progress partnership work.
	Health organisations, including CCGs, have expressed concerns about CCGs’ inability to form joint committees that are able to make binding decisions. This inability has brought many practical challenges in working together on issues that cut across boundaries, such as continuing healthcare, patient specific funding requests and service change”
	across the country. I do not know whether the Minister wants to explain why the Health and Social Care Act removed that provision, as the Health Secretary admitted in the letter to Healthwatch England. Does he want to stand up? If not, I will make some progress.
	The Minister was fortunate not to be on the Committee that looked at the Health and Social Care Bill twice, so he will not know that Opposition Members repeatedly warned during its passage that CCGs would often be too small to secure effective changes to services across wider areas. We have consistently made it clear that the only way we can get the big changes we need to be able to improve care for patients, including by specialising some services in regional centres and shifting others out of hospitals into the community and towards prevention, is by working in partnership across larger areas.
	In principle, we support the need for collaboration and for CCGs to come together both with one another and with NHS England, particularly in wanting to commission good services across primary, secondary, community and specialist care. However, serious concerns have been raised about the draft order by local healthwatch organisations, Healthwatch England and some of the organisations that responded to the consultation, and my hon. Friends may want to raise real concerns. I will go through the concerns in some detail.
	The Minister has talked about the fact that CCGs will remain autonomous, but many of them are concerned that that is not written into the draft order. Many CCGs feel that they are coming under increasing pressure from NHS England and some of its local offices. They are concerned that the draft order might take away their autonomy, forcing them into committees and decisions that they do not think are in the best interests of local people.

Norman Lamb: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Liz Kendall: If the Minister will give me two seconds, before I allow him to intervene I want to read out what NHS Clinical Commissioners—the independent collective voice of CCGs—said in its response to the consultation. It said that it
	“would not want the Legislative Reform Order to become a ‘back door mechanism’ for reconfigurations.”
	It asked for
	“some assurance the change will continue to respect the decisions of CCGs as statutory bodies”,
	and it insisted that
	“CCGs must not be pushed into shared arrangements with NHS England if it is not in the interests or needs of their population”.
	I have heard the Minister’s words about that, but the draft order has not been changed. Perhaps he would like to say more about it.

Norman Lamb: It is worth putting it on the record again that this does nothing to change the legal duties of a CCG and nothing to put any pressure on a CCG to enter any arrangement, either with other CCGs or with NHS England. If a CCG feels under pressure, it has every right to resist it, if it feels that to do so is in its interests or those of its local community. This is entirely voluntary. With regard to the legal duties, nothing changes.

Liz Kendall: If one of the 22 CCGs in the east midlands, part of which I represent, decided that it did not want to come together to commission one body to perform NHS continuing health care, for example, because it did not like it, could it say no?

Norman Lamb: Absolutely. There is nothing in the proposed amendment that could force any CCG to do anything. I suspect that in such circumstances common sense might prevail, as everyone recognises that on something such as NHS continuing health care, collaboration makes a lot of sense, as the shadow Minister indicated, but there is nothing to force anyone to do that.

Liz Kendall: Will the Minister also clarify that if NHS England wanted to form a joint committee with CCGs in the area, it could not force them into it?

Norman Lamb: This is a good exchange of views. Again, I can confirm that this is about a voluntary arrangement between a CCG or CCGs and NHS England. There is no compulsion at all.

Liz Kendall: I am very grateful to the Minister, who has perhaps been much clearer on that point than the Minister in the other place was.
	The Minister has been clear that CCGs will not be forced into joint committees, but the second concern relates to majority voting in the committees. He will know that the Regulatory Reform Committee’s report cites a couple of CCGs that have been concerned that:
	“Joint committees would be able to take majority decisions on behalf of their constituent CCGs and NHS England, and so individual CCGs might find themselves accountable for implementing policies that their members did not consider to be in the best interests of the local population.”
	To put it bluntly, if one or two CCGs on the committee disagree, they can be outvoted. Is that the case, and would it be possible for NHS England to have the casting vote on a committee?

Norman Lamb: It is helpful to respond straight away on these specific points. Again, I stress, as I think I made clear at the beginning, that it is up to the participating CCGs to determine what voting arrangements should
	be in place. If they felt that unanimity was required in order to protect the interests of the community they serve, they could make that a condition of entering the joint committee. It is entirely up to the participating CCGs to agree the rules.

Liz Kendall: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful clarification.
	The third concern has been raised by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and by the Local Government Association. They are concerned that any joint arrangements between CCGs, or between CCGs and NHS England, must be fully aligned with the geographical boundaries and strategies of local health and wellbeing boards. That is not only because we have to get health and social care working together, with council care services and the NHS, but because of accountability issues. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that later.
	The last two concerns about the draft order are, for me, the greatest. The fourth is about how the joint committees will be held to account for the decisions they take and how patients, the public, local healthwatch, health and wellbeing boards and Members of this House can know what decisions are taken and hold the joint committees to account, because I understand that they will not be required to meet in public. I raise that concern because it has been raised in two letters from the chair of Healthwatch England to the Secretary of State. In her first letter on 16 July, she wrote:
	“I am concerned about the impact this reform could have on the statutory role of local Healthwatch, the integrity of local accountability mechanisms, and meaningful public involvement in decisions about service redesign.”
	She goes on:
	“Whilst I recognise the important role CCG collaborations can play in the effective commissioning of health and social care and the transformation of traditional service models, I am sure you will agree that it is vital they are accompanied by strong accountability and engagement mechanisms. This is of particular importance given the scale of decisions being made by joint committees, and our anticipation that many more of these joint arrangements will be put in place. Without these safeguards in place, the public are far less likely to understand, or be accepting of, the changes that happen in their community.”
	She recommends that the draft order be strengthened, and makes four proposals:
	“Ensure CCGs acting in collaborative arrangements have in place adequate mechanisms meaningfully to engage the…community.”
	She suggests a
	“mandatory non-voting constitutional seat on Committees…for local Healthwatch.”
	and a
	“duty on all lead or co-ordinating commissioners to have due regard to existing local agreed priorities…(including Joint Strategic Needs Assessments and Health and Wellbeing Plans).”
	Finally, there should be
	“a duty on all lead or co-ordinating commissioners to act within existing local accountability mechanisms”
	including local health and wellbeing boards.
	When the Secretary of State replied to Anna Bradley, he said he felt that mechanisms for public accountability were in place and that there would be no proposed strengthening of the order. In her reply to him on 20 August, Anna Bradley stated:
	“I do not yet share your confidence that the new joint committee arrangements will address our concerns about transparency and accountability.”
	The Government said throughout the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and all their reforms that there should be “No decision about me without me”, but the patient and public voice, local and national Healthwatch, has said it does not believe that that strong patient and public voice will be effective under the proposed order. The Minister needs to respond to that.
	Finally—this is a particular concern of mine—one decision that joint committees can take concerns individual patient-specific funding requests for things such as NHS continuing health care. Any hon. Member whose constituent has applied for that kind of funding, or funding for a number of different areas, knows that it can be difficult to get to the bottom of those decisions. I had a particular problem with Greater East Midlands commissioning support unit, which manages continuing health care for the 22 CCGs in the east midlands. I have barely been able to get any information out of it about the bad decisions it has taken, and that is a real worry because I am concerned that the joint committees will repeat that. How will we know how those decisions are taken or hold them to account?

Norman Lamb: Perhaps the hon. Lady will give me details of that concern in her local area. It is important that we hold the different parts of the system to account, and she should be able to establish the position. I am happy to pursue that matter for her if she would like.

Liz Kendall: I am grateful to the Minister. I will forward him my concerns, just as I have done to my local CCGs and the chief executive of NHS England.
	To conclude, Healthwatch raised these concerns in relation to a particular issue in Greater Manchester and the Healthier Together project, where 12 CCGS have grouped together to reconfigure services. The local healthwatch is concerned that under the draft order some of the problems it has seen with Healthier Together could be replicated. For example, I understand that governance meetings for Healthier Together started to take place in public only in March 2014. That was after major decisions—such as the model for service reconfiguration—were discussed in a closed session of that committee. The local healthwatch remains concerned about the lack of clarity on planned public involvement in Healthier Together in future, and, like the local healthwatch, Healthwatch England is concerned that the joint committees will not be accountable to patients and the public.
	Hon. Members across the House will say that previous primary care trusts were sometimes not open and accountable, and I may have shared some of those concerns. This is a chance to put things right, but I am concerned that the draft order is not strong enough and I know other hon. Members will also raise that point.

Jeremy Lefroy: I rise to support the order in general, while wishing to raise some serious concerns in Stafford and further afield in Staffordshire. I will not rehearse the circumstances there, other than
	to say that two of our hospitals, Stafford and Cannock Chase, are currently being integrated, the first with the University Hospital of North Staffordshire and the second with Royal Wolverhampton hospital, while at the same time an inquiry is being held into the entire health economy in Staffordshire. It is characterised as a fragile health economy—which it absolutely is—and we await the report, due in the next few days, with keen interest.
	Four CCGs in Staffordshire—Stafford and Surrounds, Cannock Chase, Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire —have come together to commission cancer and end-of-life services. Like all Members, I have no problem with the idea of improving outcomes for cancer patients. Together with Macmillan, the CCGs have consulted heavily with local cancer patients, and that extremely valuable work has raised many concerns about the co-ordination of services in Staffordshire that I share—constituents have come to me with the same concerns. That is all well and good and I agree with that work.
	We have very strong concerns, however, over the proposal for improving those services. As I understand it, everywhere else Macmillan has worked with CCGs and NHS England, a co-operative and collaborative approach has been adopted to improve the co-ordination of cancer and end-of-life services. CCGs have to commission services from many different providers—37 in Staffordshire, I believe—so it is a complex operation and I understand why they want to simplify it, but in Staffordshire, instead of saying to existing providers, “How can we work better together? Could someone take the lead and work with us to provide better cancer and end-of-life services?” the services have been put out to tender for 10 years. These services are worth £120 million a year, which is £1.2 billion over 10 years.
	I have two major concerns and plan to make a direct request to the Minister at the end of my remarks. First, an extremely large reorganisation and tender process are being imposed on a fragile health economy that is going through an extremely difficult amalgamation of two hospitals into other trusts which we must support and must be done properly to ensure patient safety and quality of care. However, one of the acute trusts, UHNS, which will be taking over Stafford hospital and will effectively—there is no other alternative—be the one providing acute cancer services in the area, has also expressed grave concern.
	As a result of that concern, I and other colleagues from Stoke-on-Trent and elsewhere wrote to the CCGs asking them at least to suspend the process until the extreme fragility of the health economy had been made more robust as a result of the dissolution of Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. To date, that has not happened. There have been public meetings. I addressed one, with others, on Saturday in Stafford. I do not want to do down the work done with many patients in my constituency and others who want to see improvements in cancer and end-of-life services. I do not want that work to be lost at all, but I believe there are other ways to ensure that the co-operation and co-ordination are better.
	My second point is about consultation. The shadow Minister raised important points. Does consultation have to happen independently in each of the CCGs involved in the grouping, or will it be done en masse, in which case, will there be assurances that the consultation
	will be balanced across all the CCGs involved? In this case, as I say, we have had quite extensive consultation with patients, but at the meeting I addressed in Victoria park in Stafford on Saturday, one cancer patient raised his concern that he had not been consulted. Members of Parliament from the area have not been consulted; nor indeed have the main providers of acute cancer care in the area—the University Hospital of North Staffordshire and, for the time being, the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. They provide very good cancer treatment and care, although the co-ordination and other services such as psychological counselling, financial advice and so forth could be considerably better in some cases.
	There are serious questions about the consultation with all relevant bodies. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 states that the clinical commissioning group
	“must make arrangements to secure that individuals to whom services are being or may be provided are involved”
	in various ways, including
	“in decisions of the group affecting the operation of the commissioning arrangements where the implementation of the decisions would (if made) have such an impact.”
	I believe that that has not happened in this case. It must happen, which is why I am asking for at least a suspension of the process until it has happened.
	Page 6 of the fifth report of the Regulatory Reform Committee on the draft regulatory reform order refers to
	“concerns about possible loss of protection”
	because
	“Joint committees would be able to take majority decisions on behalf of their constituent CCGs and NHS England, and so individual CCGs”
	might find themselves increasingly concerned during the process, as I know a couple of them are at the moment. They could find themselves still heavily involved, having committed substantial financial resources, but as a result of the consultation and listening to their patients and their members they no longer want to go ahead with the process. They would probably be outvoted.
	I conclude by asking the Minister to look very closely at this issue, which was featured in Private Eye this week. I ask that some common sense be brought to bear on the situation, if possible, and I ask for a slowing down or suspension of the process until we have a better health economy in Staffordshire and until we are clearer about the consultation process that needs to happen.

Graham Stringer: I rise to oppose the order for two primary reasons. I shall attempt to divide the House at the end of the debate.
	My first reason relates to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. Right hon. and hon. Members may not be over-familiar with the Act, but its purpose was to allow regulatory burdens to be taken away if it was unlikely that Parliament would find time to debate the issues and if they were not controversial. It provides in the Act—this is why we are debating the order today—that if the Regulatory Reform Committee is not unanimous, there should be a debate on the Floor of the House. If there is a majority against the order, a longer debate in a different form would take place. The Committee did not unanimously support the order—I am not aware why
	one Member voted against it—and that has provided an opportunity to look at the process governed by the 2006 Act and assess whether the order complies with it.
	In the simplest, most common-sense terms, an order would be passed if it would remove a burden and was non-controversial. I think that this order is controversial, and I do not think that it meets the conditions in the Act. Those conditions exist because, effectively, the process and the order concerned will relieve the House of the burden and responsibility of going through three Readings in this House and three Readings in the other place, so we have to be certain that this order is non-controversial.
	First, there is the question of the consultation on the order. The report states that the Department consulted the better regulation unit, and was told that, as the order would remove only an administrative burden,
	“it would be appropriate to conduct a targeted consultation rather than a full public consultation.”
	I do not think that that is appropriate. Almost everything to do with the structure of the health service at the present time is controversial. My constituents and, certainly, Members of Parliament have views and concerns about that, but they were not directly involved or consulted about the process, and I think that that is a mistake in itself.
	Then there is the claim that the order will remove an administrative burden. When I questioned the Minister earlier about the administrative burden, I tried to explain that, at present, clinical commissioning groups can organise themselves into committees, and can make decisions if those decisions are unanimous. They do not have to report back to anyone, so there is not an administrative burden there. There are other ways in which they can co-operate: they can reach legal agreements, or, indeed, they can report back, as in the example given by the Minister.
	I do not believe that there is an administrative burden to be removed. However, I do think that there is the potential for repression of a clinical commissioning group. While it is voluntary to enter into these arrangements, if clinical commissioning groups entered into them in good faith and then encountered a more controversial issue, it would be difficult for them to move out; and if they could move out, that would return them to exactly the position in which they would have been had they been entering into a voluntary agreement with a committee in common, which means that there is no removal of an administrative burden. If that is the case, we do not need the order. If it not the case, it is possible for a majority of clinical commissioning groups to overrule the interests of other CCGs.
	In my view, the Regulatory Reform Committee and the Department have not followed the rules set down in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, and the House should reject the order on that basis alone.
	I am not engaging in a theoretical discussion, and I am not going to ask the Minister to listen to a debate that would be exactly the same as our recent Westminster Hall debate about the proposals in “Healthier Together”. However, a consultation—a very flawed consultation—is currently taking place in Greater Manchester. The health trust that covers Wigan, Wrightington, and Leigh in the west of Greater Manchester, and the one that covers south Manchester and Wythenshawe, fear that the proposals
	are unreasonable, and feel unable to support them at present. If the proposals were to go ahead, it would be possible for a majority of the 12 clinical commissioning groups that operate in Greater Manchester to make a decision that would impose changes on the hospitals in those clinical commissioning areas which are not wanted by the clinical commissioning groups.
	As I said, the consultation is deeply flawed. It involves upgrading some hospitals to specialist hospital status and in effect downgrading other hospitals. Incidentally, three of the hospitals—those in north Manchester, Bury and Tameside—have not been consulted on the proposed changes in those hospitals.
	The local healthwatch team said that the way in which our CCGs are operating is outside the law and that this proposal would put them inside the law. We can see the reason why: they want a majority decision, not a decision that would represent the areas of Wigan and south Manchester. I could talk a great deal about the rest of the “Healthier Together” proposals, but we debated those details in Westminster Hall. I do not think that the proposals are in the interests of the people of Greater Manchester. They try to jump the gun before the general election. It would be better for the decisions to be made by whichever Government are in power after the general election.
	The consultation documents omit to mention the financial situation in which Greater Manchester finds itself—a £1 billion deficit is projected in the next two and a half to three years—and make proposals that could lead to the closure of hospitals, while pretending that they are only small decisions. The consultation paper wanders all over the place—through primary, secondary and tertiary care—but at the core of the consultation is the change in status of a number of hospitals in Greater Manchester. I worry that, if the CCGs work together and make majority decisions, the proposals in the “Healthier Together” consultation will be used as a blank cheque—health authorities in Greater Manchester will have carte blanche to do what they wish, without taking account of the views of the people of Greater Manchester.

Andrew Lansley: I did not intend to say much about the regulatory reform order but I am prompted to do so to ask some questions and to respond to one or two points. I will not rise to the bait of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), other than to say that I thought it deeply ironic that, in railing against the Health and Social Care Act 2012, she instanced for most of her speech the views of Healthwatch England, a body representing patients that was created under that Act. It remedies one of the greatest failings of the last Labour Government, who demolished successive efforts to give patients a genuine voice.
	I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) for instancing the Act’s requirements on CCGs in relation to patient involvement. “No decision about me without me” is at the heart of the principles of reform. They are set out in the primary legislation. This reform order does not in any way reduce the statutory requirements on CCGs, which
	must ensure that any joint arrangements they enter into match up to the requirements under the Act.
	Under the Act, the essence of CCGs, compared with primary care trusts, is that they are independent statutory bodies. I will not follow the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and discuss the process of the regulatory reform order, but he is right: it is not theoretical; it is practical. There is a practical reason why we are in a better place, with CCGs enjoying statutory authority compared with PCTs. Although they were statutory bodies, they did not have the authority that exists presently under statute to deliver and commission services in the interests of the population they serve, without interference or instruction by others. Therefore, as the Minister rightly says, if they wish to enter into these commissioning arrangements, they do so on a voluntary basis. My view is that in the relatively short intervening period under the Act, they have probably underestimated their capacity as statutory bodies to enter into arrangements voluntarily, exercising their statutory authorities as long as they do not improperly delegate their responsibility.
	That takes us back to the practical issue. I remember that in 2006, also in Manchester, as it happens—some Members will recall this very well—there was the reorganisation of maternity and children’s services across the city. I suspect that what is being complained of in relation to Healthier Together is exactly the same kind of complaint as was made against that consultation, which had its deficiencies, of which I complained.
	Leaving aside whether the consultation was good, bad or indifferent, the point is it did arrive at a position. I can remember talking to the chief executive of the primary care trust in Salford and also, separately to the chief executive of Salford Royal, and they were told that, as a consequence of the configuration, although the primary care trust wished to commission maternity services and paediatric intensive care services from Salford Royal and the hospital wished to provide them, they were not allowed to do so because the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts was preventing them from doing so. In fact, as they were, in effect, in a hierarchy under the strategic health authority, under past legislation they could have been required—forced—to go down that route, and were forced to do so.
	That, in my view, is not the position now, and it still will not be the position under these proposals because they are voluntary. If a CCG takes the view that it is in the best interests of its population to deliver some service, it must take a decision consistent with that view. If that means it enters into a voluntary arrangement to deliver that, that is to be supported. If it takes the view that it has to depart from any such arrangement in order to secure the best interests of its population, it must go down that path as well. It would be wrong, under this order or otherwise, for it not to do what is in the best interests of the population it serves.
	Finally I have a question, which in this respect is an important one following on from what the shadow Minister asked. In commissioning—quite often when commissioning, for example, out-of-hospital and community services—it is right that one may well need to co-ordinate across CCG services and NHS England’s responsibility for the commissioning of primary care services or, indeed, other services such as dental care and pharmacy services. That being the case, however, it is also important to
	commission across social care services and some public health aspects of local authorities’ responsibilities. With local authorities having their own statutory authority, and CCGs likewise, it is perfectly possible for them to enter into joint commissioning arrangements, and they do so. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me that not only are local authorities and the geography of health and wellbeing boards and scrutiny to be respected in terms of the way in which CCGs enter into these kinds of voluntary arrangements, but also that where they enter into joint commissioning arrangements they are able to do so in ways that can mesh together NHS England, CCGs, as necessary, and local authorities.
	I urge that at the heart of this is a recognition that CCGs now have statutory authority. That is what is different. They are accountable to their local community, and must set out a commissioning plan and agree it with their health and wellbeing boards. If they try to enter into an arrangement which is contrary to the best interests of their population, as set out in that commissioning plan or by agreement with the health and wellbeing boards, clearly it would be deficient and it should not be able to be pursued.

Richard Fuller: It is truly a pleasure to listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) and to follow him in the debate. I am a member of the Regulatory Reform Select Committee and it was my vote that enabled the House as a whole to debate this measure, which might, on paper, seem rather arcane. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) asked why we are debating it in this way. We are doing so because the core dilemma in much health reform involves the tension between local decision making and common advance. For many people, there is a tension between the priority to localise decision making and the need, as seen by professionals such as the doctors and clinicians whom we trust, for some decisions to be made on a common basis in order to achieve overall advances in health care. It can be difficult to find the appropriate boundaries as we try to resolve that tension.
	I felt that it was important to bring this matter to the House so that other hon. Members could have a chance to talk about the experience in their own localities. The issues in Greater Manchester have already been mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) has mentioned the issues in his own area. I also felt that it was important to herald one of the most important attributes of the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire introduced, which was to enable, as far as possible, decision making on these issues to take place locally and to ensure that those local decisions were led not by politicians or bureaucrats but by doctors. A concern has been expressed that this change would somehow draw us away from those reforms.
	The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), asked some extremely pertinent questions, although she perhaps got off to a bad start by taking the political apparatchik line and suggesting that certain problems were the result of the reforms. This is actually about one of the best parts of those reforms, which allows local people to make decisions.
	That was reflected in the widely quoted comments made by Anna Bradley, the chair of Healthwatch England. In her note, she said that
	“we are concerned that the proposed reforms could create the conditions for CCG decision-making to become disconnected from the transparency and accountability mechanisms put in place by the Government’s health reforms”.
	She recognises, as do many hon. Members, the importance of the tension. She also referred to it in a press release, in which she stated:
	“We understand the benefits of commissioners working collaboratively but it remains crucial that local people are involved, asked what they want and understand how decisions will affect the way services are delivered in their area.”
	In my own area in Bedfordshire, we have been having a collaborative exercise between two clinical commissioning groups, and they have done an extraordinarily good job of communicating and maintaining local decision making.

Graham Stringer: The House owes the hon. Gentleman a debt of gratitude for bringing the order before us today. Will he tell us whether, in the example he is giving, the order would help, hinder or be neutral?

Richard Fuller: I am not an expert, but in that particular instance I do not think I would fear the joint committee making a different recommendation from the current committee in common, although it has yet to come back with its report. The point is that the hon. Gentleman and others have aired important questions for the Minister to answer. He has answered some of them, and that has been the purpose of the debate today.
	Underpinning all this is the fact—whose importance I hope the Minister will emphasise in his response—that people want important health decisions to be taken locally. They can be persuaded of, and they can understand, the issue of common advance, but they want to know that a decision is being taken locally. I think that the Minister dealt with this in his response to the shadow Minister, but I would be grateful if he answered these points quite specifically. First, am I right in thinking that he said that decisions on the part of commissioning groups to go into joint committees were voluntary, rather than compulsory, and that it would therefore remain possible for them to continue to set up committees in common if they so wished? My second question—

Norman Lamb: rose—

Richard Fuller: I am happy to give way to the Minister iteratively, or he can wait until I have given him the full menu. Which would he prefer?

Norman Lamb: The answer to that question is yes, absolutely; I repeat that this is a voluntary act by any CCG. To address one of the concerns raised by the shadow Minister, let me say that there may well be circumstances in which CCGs want the rules of the game established at the start of the joint committee saying that there will be circumstances in which they can withdraw from that committee. So there are no circumstances in which any CCG needs to feel that it will be oppressed in any way by its neighbouring CCGs, NHS England or anyone else.

Richard Fuller: I am grateful for that clarification. My second question is on the issue of voting on the
	joint committees. To be effective, is it a requirement that joint committees should be based on unanimous voting only and that all CCGs would have to agree, or will joint committees be substantially based on majority voting? Is it open to CCGs to create joint committees with majority or unanimity voting depending on how they wish to set those up?

Norman Lamb: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. May I say to the Minister that I know he is trying to be helpful, but he will soon be seeking to answer this debate? We have only one more speaker to go, so to help the flow of the debate perhaps Members could finish their speeches and then he can respond.

Richard Fuller: I am grateful for the direction, Madam Deputy Speaker. My third question relates to the legalities and costs, which were mentioned by the Minister and were in the justification for making this change from committees in common to joint committees. I am still a little at a loss as to what those legalities and costs are. What costs are currently incurred or are anticipated to be incurred, and why would the costs be substantially less with joint committees? I am not looking for a generic answer such as, “There are some legal costs here and legal costs there.” I am looking for something specific, because if we are to make a change, we have to demonstrate that a substantial administrative burden has been taken away.
	My fourth question relates to the impact of the change on existing committees in common. I think it would be correct to say that the Healthier Together review in Manchester is proceeding as a committee in common, not as a joint committee. Would that be the case if this change is made, or would it be possible, either automatically or by choice, for existing committees in common to be transferred to joint committees with the same decision rights that joint committees would have? I am not too clear as to the position for committees that are already extant.
	My fifth question relates to the Minister’s statement that committees in common somehow place a “burden”. I would be grateful for his clarification that he does not believe that the essence of localism, which was a substantial intention behind the reform introduced my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, is the burden to which reference is being made. Sometimes one fears that there is tension between localism and common advance. If we allow the people who are on joint committees and their decision making to get further and further away from the people, the burden of having to go back to get local approval is lost. I hope that the Minister can clarify that that is not what is meant in the order’s reference material.
	Finally, there has been a lot of commentary about the fact that it is up to committees to change their minds later on and to decide whether it is a joint committee or not. But the Minister can be clear that not all the consequences of what a committee will find can be known at the outset. Can he clarify whether it is possible for CCGs that are already signed up to joint decision making on joint committees by majority voting to
	change their rules, or are they bound by those rules once they have signed up to them? I am very grateful for the opportunity to debate these issues on the Floor of the House, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Sarah Wollaston: I apologise for missing the opening speeches, but I was chairing the Health Committee. I am delighted to have been here to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). I absolutely agree with him, and am grateful to him for raising this issue of the tension that exists between localism and the decisions that are being made in good faith by clinical commissioners. There is a need for us to engage local people in decision-making to ensure that we get the best possible outcome for them.
	I am sure that other Members have raised concerns about Healthwatch and the possibility of the local voice being squeezed out. Will the Minister address the issue of the time scale that is often given to local people to consider quite detailed proposals? Indeed, detailed proposals will be given to local health and wellbeing boards at Devon county council with only a day’s notice, and there is no obligation to include local healthwatch. We need guidance in that area, especially if we are to have committees in common, which I support. I will support the regulatory reform order, as it is a good thing. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), I think that we could go further and involve other groups in these permissive arrangements. As he will know, for people living on the boundaries of clinical commissioning groups, such arrangements do not always appear to be logical. This will allow commissioning to take place over a wider area with better outcomes for patients and often with great saving. I absolutely support the measure, but the concerns expressed by Healthwatch, which have also been expressed to me, need to be addressed.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to all Members for their contributions to this debate. Regarding the shadow Minister’s contribution, I am pleased to hear that she is supportive, at least in principle, of this capacity to facilitate greater collaboration at a local level. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) said, it is rather ironic that this is all about a reformed health system that has much better clinical and democratic legitimacy than the one we inherited from the Opposition. I notice that no one is out there waving banners demanding the return of the primary care trust. Ultimately, that body had no accountability to the local community—[Interruption.] No, it had no accountability. Its accountability was entirely upwards to the strategic health authority and to the national level.

Liz Kendall: That is completely over the top. Sometimes I have had great trouble getting any answers out of my CCG. Sometimes they have been good and sometimes they have been bad. I have also had great trouble getting anything out of the commissioning support unit. The Minister should not paint some super rosy picture of fantastic accountability and patient involvement, as there are still some real issues.

Norman Lamb: I fully understand that we should always be arguing the case for greater openness and for greater legitimacy and accountability. All I am saying is that the system that we inherited had no local legitimacy at all, and that this is a significant improvement.
	The shadow Minister talked about alignment with health and wellbeing boards. I think that that will almost always be the case. In my county of Norfolk, there are several CCGs, but all are operating within a health and wellbeing area and a local health economy. There may be circumstances in which more than one health and wellbeing board area is being considered, and I think that that is the case within the Manchester area and the discussions that are going on there. But in most circumstances, the sort of collaboration that we are talking about will be consistent with the health and wellbeing board area.
	The shadow Minister also asked how CCGs will be held to account for joint decisions. When they act in joint committee, they will be subject to the same duties as when they act on their own and the accountability they face will be exactly the same. It is very important to reiterate that point.
	The hon. Lady also raised concerns about the issues that Healthwatch England has raised, and I stress that the Department, NHS England and Healthwatch England are working together to ensure that CCGs have the materials and resources they need to support their effective and accountable collaboration and local healthwatch organisations and others are supported to hold the system effectively to account. Everything on our side is about facilitating accountability at a local level, not undermining it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) raised concerns about the issues in his area. I think that it is fair to say that they are not directly related to the proposals under the order, in that his concerns are about issues under the current arrangements rather than any potential impact of the proposed change. I want to reassure him that nothing in the order in any way undermines effective accountability for changes. I think it would be dangerous for me to go down the route of responding to the points he raises about his local circumstances, and I suspect that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I tried to do so.

Jeremy Lefroy: The point I wish to make is that in our case the group of CCGs that is seeking to put out to tender the commissioning of end-of-life and cancer services appears to be abrogating its responsibilities for commissioning. These are clinical commissioning groups, yet they seek to put out to tender the commissioning of vital services for our constituents for 10 years. One might be concerned that the groupings would seek to do more like that.

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend expresses a concern about what is happening at present and he is absolutely right as a local Member to challenge, question and hold to account the clinical commissioning groups in his area, but I do not think that there is anything in the order that changes the arrangements about which he is concerned. Indeed, I think that streamlining the system so that there is more effective accountability and less opaque decision making is better for local people.
	Concerns were raised that joint committees might not meet in public. Joint working does not need to mean that it will take place behind closed doors and exactly the same responsibilities will apply to CCGs when they work jointly as when they work on their own or through committees in common. Indeed, I understand that committees in common have already on occasion met in public and I would always encourage accountable organisations to operate in public wherever possible. That is the approach that I seek to advocate.
	In response to concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, let me make the point that the requirements for service change that apply to a CCG regarding any major proposal for change will still apply, including that for appropriate consultation. Joint committees might want to consult jointly to co-ordinate their communications to patients and the public where appropriate, but the duty remains on the clinical commissioning group and it must demonstrate that it is meeting it.
	The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) again raised concerns about the process going on in Manchester and he and I debated the matter in debate to which he referred. I stress that his concerns are about actions taken under the existing regime, with a committee in common, rather than under the proposals in the order.
	The hon. Gentleman expressed worry about the appropriateness of the order under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, but both the Regulatory Reform Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee judged that a satisfactory case had been made for the LRO and that the order met the tests under the 2006 Act, so his concerns are misplaced. Although he has legitimate and genuine concerns about the process in Manchester and whether it is right for local people, I suggest to him that accountability will be encouraged and improved if the new system is less opaque and more clearly set out in legislation than the existing one. All the things about which he worries are happening under the existing arrangements.
	It is up to CCGs to set out terms of reference for any joint committee arrangement, such as the scope for decision taking, and arrangements for membership or voting. They may also determine situations in which a CCG would wish to withdraw from a joint committee arrangement. The hon. Gentleman was worried that one CCG might feel oppressed or bullied by others, but it could set the terms of reference so that it could withdraw in defined circumstances, so his concern is misplaced.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire spoke about important improvements in democratic accountability and clinical leadership in commissioning, and the benefits that that secures. He asked about collaboration on commissioning not only between CCGs, or between CCGs and NHS England, but, critically, with local authorities and public health bodies. Such collaboration is facilitated, and he and I share the view that we should try to promote a more permissive NHS health and care system within which local arrangements may be put in place to ensure that the resources available throughout the health and care system are used as efficiently as possible. We should encourage such joint commissioning, rather than putting blocks in its way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) rightly talked about the tension that exists between local decision making and clinical best practice. This approach is all about managing that tension, rather than trying to pretend that it does not exist. He made the vital point, with which I agree, that people want health decisions to be taken locally, and we should try to facilitate open discussion and debate about the difficult choices that we sometimes have to make, rather than taking power away from people, which just undermines confidence in the system.
	My hon. Friend asked about unanimity, so I repeat that if a CCG wants to enter into a joint committee arrangement, but to protect its position on behalf of its local community, it can insist that unanimity is the basis on which decisions are taken. That is entirely a matter for the participating CCGs.
	My hon. Friend asked about the cost and burden of the existing arrangements. We all understand the possibility of legal challenge, and there can be complex arrangements that involve organisations going through hoops to ensure that they meet their legal duties, perhaps by going back to their CCGs so that a decision taken in a committee in common may be endorsed. The more complicated those arrangements, however, the greater the risk of legal challenge, and therefore the cost, so simplifying in law the basis by which CCGs and NHS England can come together to make joint decisions, should they want to, improves accountability, makes the system less opaque and reduces the risk of unnecessary costs. I totally agree with my hon. Friend this is not about the burden of localism. Localism is a burden worth carrying; it is not to be avoided. The burden is bureaucratic complexity and the involvement of lawyers—I speak as an ex-lawyer. The more we can keep lawyers out of it, the better, and I am sure many hon. Members would agree.
	My hon. Friend made the point that not all consequences may be known at the outset and that things may change, but CCGs can set the terms of reference to provide for that if they choose to. The measure is absolutely permissive; it does not impose anything on anyone.
	My right hon. Friend—sorry, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I thought something might have happened as a result of her election to the Chair of the Select Committee, but it will happen in time, I am sure. I am delighted that she supports the measure. She made the perfectly legitimate point that, we ought to be encouraging and facilitating working across boundaries, both of CCGs and of the different organisations involved in health and care, to get the best possible use of the resource available for any local area.
	Finally, I repeat that we take on board the concerns of Healthwatch England. We intend to work with that body to ensure maximum accountability for the decisions taken as part of these joint committees.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 276, Noes 152.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Legislative Reform (Clinical Commissioning Groups) order 2014, which was laid before this House on 13 March 2014, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Second Reading

Bob Blackman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	This private Bill is promoted by Transport for London. It was deposited on 26 November 2010, and ordered to commence in the House of Lords. It was read the First time in the other place on 24 January 2011, and it was read a Second time on 13 December 2011, when it was debated. It was a further two years until the Unopposed Bill Committee took place on 28 January 2014. It was read the Third time in the other place and transferred to this Chamber on 4 March, when the First Reading took place. It is therefore fair to say that the Bill has had a long gestation period.
	The Bill’s purpose is to provide Transport for London with a broader set of powers so that it can meet its business needs more flexibly and take advantage of more efficient arrangements for the stewardship of its financial affairs. Transport for London has identified various opportunities for maximising the value of its assets, but at the moment they cannot be fully realised unless it acquires new statutory powers or restrictions on the exercise of its current powers are removed. The Bill is also an opportunity to save money for taxpayers and fare payers. It has only four substantive clauses, but its principle is of importance to TfL, not least because the benefits deriving from the Bill will enable TfL to deliver much better value for money for the fare payer and the tax-paying public at large.
	The first three clauses broadly concern bringing the Bill into operation. The first substantive clause is clause 4, which allows Transport for London subsidiaries to borrow and grant security over assets and revenue streams, enabling TfL to have cheaper finance for projects and greater flexibility in how it borrows. TfL currently has the power to borrow and it has a borrowing programme, but it may offer lenders only a non-specific charge over revenues, not over properties.
	Borrowing on a secured basis will allow TfL subsidiaries to achieve lower interest rates than can be obtained through the Public Works Loan Board or through issuing bonds—the original aim under the legislation initiated by the previous Government—which are two of the significant debt financing options available to TfL. The clause will allow TfL to borrow money in circumstances where granting security is done predominantly or exclusively on a secured basis, and unsecured borrowing is either not possible or very costly. For example, property developments are usually financed by the lender taking a charge over the land being developed, which accordingly leads to a lower interest rate and means less risk to all parties.
	Clause 4 allows TfL’s subsidiaries to borrow for a discrete purpose and to structure security so that a creditor has recourse only against the subsidiary borrowing and not against TfL and its other subsidiaries. That protects the fare-paying and tax-paying public from any liability that arises on TfL debts.
	Clause 4 allows TfL to purchase subsidiary companies that already have secured debt. TfL will no longer be required to restructure secured debt when it purchases a
	company with such existing debt. TfL had to acquire Tube Lines Ltd and Tube Lines Finance plc at very expensive rates—I well remember the fiasco, as I was a member of the London assembly at the time. Had clause 4 then been in operation, TfL would have been spared significant costs, which ultimately have been borne by fare payers and taxpayers and resulted in lenders receiving enhanced value for their loans for nil consideration to TfL.
	Clause 4 includes important safeguards and limitations. It provides that TfL subsidiaries must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to grant security, except in respect of categories of property included in the schedule to the Bill, which Members can go through in detail if they are interested. The exempt property may generally be described as property that is ancillary to TfL’s core function of providing passenger transport services and includes such categories as property that is used for the purposes of car parking or retail units, for example. The consent of the Mayor of London is always required, irrespective of the type of property being changed.
	Clause 4 provides that the rights of existing TfL creditors are preserved in full. A secured creditor may have priority over an existing creditor only where the existing creditor consents to the arrangement, so all parties are protected. TfL subsidiary borrowings will still be subject to the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 2003. Borrowings must only be for any purpose relevant to a local authority’s functions or for the prudent management of its financial affairs. TfL subsidiaries will also be subject to existing borrowing limits set by the Secretary of State, so the public sector borrowing requirement is protected and security is granted.
	Clause 5 expands TfL’s power to form different types of entities for the purpose of carrying out its functions. I understand that this is the most controversial clause for those who object to the Bill. I understand that the sponsors have had meetings with several of the individuals who are concerned and that undertakings have been given in that respect. Currently, TfL may only form bodies corporate, which includes companies and limited liability partnerships. TfL is seeking a new power to form, or join others in forming, limited partnerships and to invest in those partnerships once formed. TfL would like the option of using a limited partnership when seeking third-party investment, which seems a sensible process.
	Pension funds and foreign entities are likely investors, so we are likely to see greater investment in joint arrangements with TfL, which will represent good value for the taxpayer. Those investors often prefer to invest in partnerships, rather than company structures, because of the tax transparency that partnerships afford. If TfL can offer a partnership as the joint venture vehicle, it is likely that there will be increased interest in the investment opportunity and that the maximum value of the asset will be realised. TfL proposes that it may form a limited partnership only for the purpose of carrying out its functions, which prevents speculative arrangements.
	There is a limited tax benefit from using a limited partnership, but it is confined to stamp duty land tax, which is payable when land is transferred into a partnership. Stamp duty land tax is levied only on the proportionate share of the land being acquired by fellow partners, rather than the whole part. That benefit is conferred on any partner of a limited partnership irrespective of
	their status and is not unique to TfL. Indeed, many local authorities use limited partnerships for joint ventures and have been supported in doing so by the Treasury.

Christopher Chope: I am fascinated by what my hon. Friend is telling the House, but surely there is a bigger picture. Would it be better for TfL effectively to be owned by the people of London? They could have shares in TfL, so it would therefore be funded to a larger extent by equity capital without the need to borrow.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. That would be a very radical move away from TfL’s existing capability and the arrangements that are made. I am sure the Mayor of London will be listening to the debate and will consider that suggestion appropriately, but it is beyond the scope of Second Reading, which is limited regarding proposed borrowing changes.
	Transport for London’s subsidiary share of the profits generated by a partnership will be liable to tax in the same way as if a company were used instead of a limited partnership, thereby maintaining appropriate tax transparency. Several individuals, and particularly the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, have been concerned about whether the Secretary of State should give permission for such entities to be entered into. I understand that a written undertaking has been given to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the RMT on the basis that an amendment will be introduced in Committee that would require the Secretary of State’s permission for such an organisation to be permitted, which I hope answers one of the principal objections.

Angie Bray: Is there an awareness of concerns that some of my local residents will have about proposals for the increased use of the Acton depot? As my hon. Friend will know, there is a substantial residential community in that area, which will not welcome the further increase in pollution that I suspect some of these activities will lead to.

Bob Blackman: My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for her local residents, and she has been at the forefront of the campaign against environmental air pollution and suchlike in her area. One objection to the Bill comes from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), whom we will hear from later, in relation to the Earls Court development. I understand that part of that process is to transfer the depot from the Earls Court area to Acton. Clearly, as sponsors TfL will have to ensure that air and noise pollution is reduced considerably to answer the objections that my hon. Friend has related to the House.
	Clause 6 seeks to expand the type of entities through which TfL’s commercial activities must be undertaken. TfL is currently required to undertake profit-making activities through a company limited by shares that is either a subsidiary or a joint venture. The clause amends that restriction to give TfL the option of using any type of entity that it has the power to form. In addition to a company limited by shares, TfL would be able to use a company limited by guarantee, a limited liability partnership, or a limited partnership. Importantly, clause 6 preserves the policy that TfL must undertake commercial activities
	through a taxable entity by requiring that a TfL subsidiary be member of a limited liability partnership, or a partner in a limited partnership. A company limited by guarantee is itself liable to taxation. Clause 6 will enable TfL to conduct its affairs more flexibly and at the same time preserve tax transparency and ensure that the relevant amount of tax is paid to the Exchequer. That will mean that it can use the structure that best suits the opportunity, and net the maximum value for money from its assets in so doing.
	Clause 7 amends TfL’s hedging power, responding to changes in the way financial institutions hedge risk away from specific commodity trading to trading by indices—for example, the use of an oil price index as opposed to a barrel of Brent crude oil—which protects the hedging power considerably. It also gives TfL the capacity to enter into derivative investment when exposed to risk by virtue of a contractual arrangement for the provision by others of public transport services. For example, movements in fuel prices, which obviously affect TfL’s costs, would be protected.
	Currently, TfL’s hedging power may be applied only to risks to which a TfL body is directly exposed. Clause 7 clarifies that it may use its hedging powers in respect of its liability to any pension fund, for example. It is not proposed that TfL enter into any derivative investments on behalf of the TfL pension fund, so members of that fund will be protected. It is not inconceivable, however, that the fund might decide that a particular risk is acceptable, given that all its liabilities are long term and that TfL effectively underpins the risks through an obligation to increase its contributions, if necessary, and that TfL might believe that the risk needs to be mitigated. Clause 7 provides for that specific scenario only.
	In summary, the Bill will assist TfL in securing the most cost-effective borrowing possible. It will give TfL greater flexibility over how it structures its affairs, while preserving the requirement that its profit-making activities be taxed appropriately in the UK. It will improve TfL’s hedging power by reflecting developments in the derivatives market and permitting the hedging of risks that arise through contractual exposure and as a consequence of its obligations to pension funds. It will allow TfL to maximise income and investment in its assets and to deliver better value for money for fare payers and taxpayers, which we, as London MPs, crave every day. I commend the Bill to the House.

John McDonnell: It is often a tactic in debates such as these to talk at length to delay a Bill as much as possible, to obfuscate and to try to prevent it from becoming law, but we do not need any assistance for this Bill, as Transport for London has been doing that for us since 2011. It has been a bizarre process.
	I reassure the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that I will not seek to divide the House and vote against the Bill. I am a convener of the RMT parliamentary group and we are assured that clause 7 will assist us in protecting the hedging process for pension funds, so there is one clause that might have a shred of justification.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned that TfL had offered an amendment inserting a new subsection in clause 5. At some stage guidance must be issued to promoters of private Bills. TfL has been promoting the Bill since 2011; it wrote to the RMT in May when it knew about some of the specific objections and the petitions against the Bill had gone in; we had a meeting on Friday afternoon; and at 3 o’clock yesterday we received notice of an amendment. TfL’s parliamentary or advisory team needs to be examined to see how we have reached this parlous state in debating the Bill.
	I would have expected TfL at least to consult everyone who had petitioned against the Bill so far before introducing the amendment. It was obvious that such an amendment would be offered, because the lack of accountability to the Secretary of State in clause 5 stood out, but rather arrogantly it thought it could force the Bill through in the next few weeks without considering the main concerns expressed by the petitioners. Perhaps further advice should be given to TfL about how to behave when promoting proposed legislation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could suggest that sending a “peace in our time” letter at 3 o’clock on the day before the legislation is considered is simply unacceptable.
	At this stage, I would expect TfL to withdraw the Bill, consult on the amendment and bring forward a properly drafted Bill, but I cannot see that happening, so let us have at least some general discussion today about why people are anxious about it. I think it is a matter of ever having confidence in Transport for London dealing with any property development. The hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned problems with taking over tube lines. Many of us have a long memory of what happened with TfL and its relationship with the public-private partnership, which was a disaster. Time and again, TfL officials and others came forward to advise us that PPP was an excellent way to raise funds and provide services, yet it was a complete disaster, which threatened £3 billion-worth of investment in TfL. When we looked at the figures, we found that £400 million had been spent on consultants, accountants and legal advisers, first to set the thing up and then in some way to try to retrieve it from the disaster it became.
	I therefore think that this relatively small Bill of seven clauses has excited opposition among some members of the community and some Members of this House because of lack of confidence in TfL’s ability to go into partnerships with the private sector without either creating a disaster or being ripped off. Many of us worry that TfL will be given new powers to enter into partnerships that are not secure. These are not limited partnerships—they are not limited by guarantee or anything like that—but straightforward partnerships in which I suppose the main balance of interest will be with the private sector. The concern is that, yet again, the public sector will be left with the responsibilities. No matter what has been said about the hedging of some of the investments, those responsibilities could be unlimited.
	People have examined the recent escapades of TfL in private sector development, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) will want to raise the issue of Earls Court, which does not inspire confidence. In fact, if this legislation had been in place at that time, it would have been used during the Earls Court development, which has aroused an amazingly sizeable opposition within the community.
	I think it has cost the party of the hon. Member for Harrow East control of the local council, such was the scale of the opposition, and it has subjected local residents to insecurity in their homes as well as raising concerns about the local community and the local environment. The concerns about this Bill are real.
	Let me run through some of those concerns. The Bill will enable TfL to sell off or lease out land to developers elsewhere and right across the capital in the attempt to link up with property speculators as a means of gaining significant income—despite the track record of disasters in the past. Discussions with the RMT and other unions involved in TfL revealed their concern that such practices could produce extensive speculation around TfL sites, many of which should be secured for transport operations. Many within the industry raise with us the concern that this rush for short-term gain and short-term profiteering on individual sites will put at risk future developments needed for TfL in the long term.
	The Mayor of London has rightly argued that we should be expanding the transport network in the capital, which means that some of the land currently in the ownership of TfL will need to be used. It looks as though individual developments will be allowed to take place, which will take the land away from transport use into speculative development, as we have seen in the Earls Court development. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), who is no longer in the Chamber, mentioned that earlier. There is no guarantee that development of land in one area will not have consequences for other sites, and, as the hon. Lady said, it certainly will consequences in her constituency. There is a real worry that giving Transport for London these powers will result in a virtual frenzy in TfL—certainly under the guidance of the current Mayor—to convert land in central London for uses other than transport usage.

Diane Abbott: Is my hon. Friend saying that he believes that the leadership of Transport for London will sacrifice the long-term strategic interests of London’s transport infrastructure for short-term property development gain?

John McDonnell: What those who work in the industry want is a consistent plan for the development of the transport infrastructure, but what the Bill does is give more power to TfL to enter into speculative developments on the sites that it owns, along with developers. In the case of Earls Court—on which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith will wish to elaborate—we have seen property development for short-term financial gain override the needs of the travelling public and the need for long-term investment in the future of the transport infrastructure. That example illustrates the loss of confidence in Transport for London among the public that will result from its exercise of the new powers, if they are given to it. We may well see a speculators’ charter in relation to properties that are currently in public ownership under the auspices of TfL.
	People are worried not only about the desire to gain income, but about the fact that the current property developments are based largely on the selling off of land for the building of residential properties. Transport for London, as a public body, might well want to enter
	into a partnership with, in particular, local authorities, in the hope of combining the advantages of improving the transport network with the provision of residential homes. However, it seems from the examples that we have seen so far—notably in Earls Court—that the residential homes will not necessarily be for local people: in fact, that applies to a relatively small percentage. Most of the sites are being used for speculative development, and many are being bought by overseas landlords with a view to letting properties at extremely high rents.
	People fear that if TfL is given these powers, it will go on a development binge with the private sector throughout London, without taking into account either the needs of the transport infrastructure in the long term or the needs of local communities. The Bill seems to take no cognisance of the need for TfL to bear in mind the social criteria or social objectives relating to any future development when using the powers.
	As the hon. Member for Harrow East pointed out, there also seems to be a lack of accountability in the case of some of the partnerships. We received that letter on Friday specifically because concern after concern had been raised consistently over the years—for instance, regarding the fact that even the Secretary of State did not have the authority to be consulted about the exercise of some of these powers. We have now been told, in a letter that we received at 3.30 yesterday afternoon, that an amendment will be tabled to deal with that. It would have been helpful to have seen at least a draft of the amendment; all that we have is a letter of comfort, or discomfort, depending on people’s judgment of it .
	If we look at TfL’s record of participation in developments with private sector entities, we see that it is the commercial entity that has gained the profit and TfL that has been left with the responsibilities and, often, the liabilities. In the case of some of the partnerships that have already been entered into, ownership of some of the sites is so diffuse that it is difficult for the public, in particular, to hold anyone to account when it comes to some aspects of the deals.

Christopher Chope: I am listening with fascination to the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that the whole purpose of Transport for London should be to concentrate on its core business—providing transport infrastructure for the people of London? It is unlikely that Transport for London will be capable of doing things that are not its core business as well as they are done by specialists in those alternative businesses.

John McDonnell: The concern that many of us have is that Transport for London is not a property developer. It is not a developer with expertise in developing sites for high-value residential properties, yet that is the venture that it seems to want to enter into across London on most of its sites. There is an in-built lack of expertise in Transport for London. Many of us think not only that Transport for London is putting sites at risk by removing the possibility of their being used to develop transport infrastructure, but that Transport for London as a whole will be at risk from some of the liabilities that it will take on as a result of going into limited partnerships, which are not protected, with developers. The Bill has consequences not just for specific site development but for the stable funding of TfL in the long term.
	I say to the hon. Member for Harrow East that the Bill seems to be an attempt at a quick fix by an organisation that does not have the expertise to enter the activity that it wants to enter. I would be more convinced that it had that expertise if the progress of the Bill had been more efficient and effective. The legislation has been hanging around since 2011. At this late stage, the clauses have still not been drafted properly. Clause 4 has been redrafted three times in that period. We have just received the letter of comfort on clause 5, but no amendment. That does not inspire confidence. This organisation could sit down with some of the most rapacious developers in the history of property development and secure deals without satisfying not just community interests but the long-term financial security of the sector.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope): when an organisation is called Transport for London, it should concentrate on providing transport for London, rather than go into property speculation in this way. The argument may be that Transport for London is under financial pressure from the Government or others and needs to look at other ventures, but we must take into account its record of working with the private sector to gain additional income or increase efficiency.
	There was the debacle of the public-private partnership under the last Government—this is not a party political point. That demonstrates an inherent lack of expertise—I put it no more strongly than that—in the organisation; it lacks the expertise to be able to do deals with the private sector that deliver the service and that avoid the scale of liabilities that we saw under that partnership. It was extraordinary. Members who were here may recall that throughout that period the House was not kept informed. On both sides of the House there was shock at the scale of the incompetence and risk that TfL ventured into in those developments.
	Those are the main concerns. The organisation is strapped for cash, by the sound of it, although the Government advised us earlier in the year that it received a significant grant. However, TfL says that it is strapped for cash and needs another source of income. It is looking at developing its sites to provide that and it wants to do it through partnerships with the private sector. As a result there are concerns that the overall operation of TfL will be put at risk. Those are the general concerns.
	Let me turn to the individual elements of the Bill. I advise Members to go to the minutes of evidence taken before the Unopposed Bill Committee in the other House under Lord Sewel. TfL, with the Department for Transport present, took the noble Lord through the details of the Bill. As the hon. Member for Harrow East has said, it went to clause 5 in particular, and it said:
	“Clause 5 would allow TfL subsidiaries to borrow and charge against assets and revenue streams. This will provide TfL with greater flexibility on how it borrows. Under secured borrowing, TfL subsidiaries may borrow for a discrete purpose, and the security could then be structured so that the creditor has recourse only against the subsidiary borrowing and not against TfL or other TfL subsidiaries.”
	It went on to say:
	“TfL subsidiaries may not grant security without the consent of the Secretary of State, other than in respect of those matters that are specified in a new schedule proposed to be included in the Bill.”
	The hon. Gentleman referred to that.
	Let me take Members to that new schedule. This is not a delaying tactic; I would like TfL to come back with some clarity on all this. The schedule means that it can, without the Secretary of State’s approval, enter into agreement with regard to subsidiaries to borrow and charge against assets and revenue streams. As I have said, it can do that with regard to activities identified in this schedule without Secretary of State approval. Let me give a selection of them. It can borrow against assets including
	“property related to a tolling scheme…property related to the generation of power…property related to sponsorship activities being carried out by third parties”.
	It can also borrow against
	“property related to the use of land for commercial letting”.
	I have no idea of the scale that is envisaged, but it means that TfL, without Secretary of State approval, can become a sizeable landlord with commercial lets and borrow against those revenue streams. I would like TfL to say what is meant by this and I would welcome some clarity as we move into the next stages. What is the scale of operation that it is looking at?
	The schedule also refers in sub-paragraph (n) to
	“land which is not operational land”.
	Again, it would be useful to know from TfL what its definition of “not operational land” is and what the scale of that is in its portfolio.
	I raise this because many of our individual constituencies will contain pieces of TfL land which are set aside for future transport developments, and it looks as though this will enable TfL to raise revenue or borrow against those pieces of land without any Secretary of State approval whatsoever. It would be useful to know the scale of that and to have some form of report setting out where these pieces of land are. They could be fairly sizeable.
	Again, I would welcome clarity about the purpose of this particular venture in this particular case. As Members have said earlier, we all have sites in our constituencies that TfL may want to borrow against and therefore develop with a private sector subsidiary. If it then removes a transport operation from that site, it will have a knock-on effect on other sites because of the shift of functions, as is planned at Earls Court. I am concerned that there seems to be a lack of clarity from TfL in its dialogue with the petitioners on some of these issues with regard to the supply of information.
	In the presentation to the Unopposed Bill Committee in the other House, clause 6 was explained as follows:
	“Clause 6 of the Bill will allow TfL to form or join with others in forming limited partnerships. TfL would like to be able to use partnership structures to seek third-party investors in its property estate, and to manage secondary income generated from the estate.”
	TfL mentioned, I think to reassure the noble Lord in charge of the Committee, that
	“Pension funds and development partners are identified as likely investors, who often prefer limited partnerships to other legal structures to invest in.”
	I am sure that we will deal with this matter in Committee, but I would like to ask Members to look—if not today, then in Committee—at some of the concerns raised by the petitioners about the concept of limited partnerships and, in particular, at a petition from Mr Richard Osband and other parties. Mr Osband was with us on Friday when we met TfL. He is a knowledgeable person who has done a large amount of research in this area.
	He admits that he is not a lawyer, but he has vast experience in property development and commercial activities. He tried to explain his concerns, which I now share, to TfL regarding limited partnerships.
	The issue that Mr Osband raised was that a registered limited partnership may not carry out any activities at all. The partnership is between one partner and a general partner, and the general partner largely bears the main liabilities. If the other partner becomes active in some way in the management of the process, it will then become part of the definition of the general partnership and will bear liabilities. Mr Osband argued that the limited partnership concept was opening up TfL to bearing almost unlimited liabilities as a result of the process that the legislation will enable it to enter into. On Friday, we were mystified as to why there was a need for limited partnerships. The legislation itself provides for the ability to enter into partnerships with companies and others. These would be proper legal entities and they would ensure that the burden of risk was shared with the partner rather than falling significantly on to TfL.
	We are now at a late stage, and the petitioner has made his position clear. On Friday, he was simply inviting TfL to get further legal counsel’s opinion, because he and a number of others had contested the original counsel’s opinion that TfL had brought forward. I have yet to hear a convincing argument from TfL as to why it would want to enter into limited partnerships, given the element of risk involved. TfL said on Friday and in some of its other discussions with Mr Osband that this was the preferred route of the developer. I am afraid that that does not inspire confidence that any public investment in these developments would be secure.

Diane Abbott: I think Transport for London would argue that that arrangement would be preferable to the one-off sale of a freehold asset because it would guarantee a continuing revenue stream.

John McDonnell: Yes, that is one argument, but the point of the legislation is to enable TfL to enter into not only limited partnerships but proper partnerships. Clause 4 will enable TfL to enter into partnerships that are limited by guarantee, so why do we need a mechanism that is novel for TfL, that requires new legislation and that heightens the risk to TfL when there is already a vehicle available that will protect it? This mechanism appears to have been included purely and simply at the behest of some of the development companies that have approached TfL. That cannot be right. Surely the public purse needs to be protected in the best possible way. I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) is saying, but it does not mean that the sole way in which TfL can raise income streams is simply by a sell-off; it can enter into proper partnerships with limited companies. The hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned, on a grander scale, the ability to have shareholders and so on, but that is the normal way of protecting one partner and another: having a common shareholding in that way. I came at this on Friday afternoon, and I find it mystifying that although Mr Osband’s petition and further detailed notes had been received, we had not been given by today, even in the last throes of the briefings that were flying around yesterday, some form of assurance about the legal protections that would be provided as a result of introducing the availability of limited partnerships to TfL.
	Mr Osband quoted to the TfL representative the issues raised by the Law Commission on this matter. It said:
	“The essential feature of a limited partnership is that the liability of the limited partners for the debts and obligations of the partnership is limited to the amount of their contributions. This protection is lost if a limited partner takes part in management.”
	So as soon as TfL gets involved in the management of any element of the partnership and the development—I interpreted that, as did Mr Osband, as meaning any form of management of even the individual site or some asset on it—it is no longer limited in its liabilities; it becomes a general partner open to unlimited liability.
	I find it extraordinary that we have got to this stage in the Bill—three years on from its original promotion by TfL, nearly six months since the petitions were submitted on this issue and following a meeting on Friday—yet we still have not had a response in any detail on Mr Osband’s valid criticisms of what has taken place in terms of the development of a concept of limited partnership at the behest of the private developers.
	Let me quote from the briefing note that Mr Osband provided for TfL on Friday, although I will not use the names of TfL officers, as to do so would be invidious. He said that one of the officers dealing with this
	“seems oblivious to the fact that it would be TfL’s Limited Partner that would be at risk of unlimited liability by virtue of TfL’s participation in the management of the General Partner. Would TfL really want to enter a Joint Venture with no management control?”
	This is like choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea. One can enter into a limited partnership and one’s liabilities are limited if one is not part of the management of that, but as soon as one enters into the management one’s liabilities are unlimited, yet a public body such as TfL would be expected to have some form of management responsibilities for the venture that is taking place. So it automatically gets caught, as this is a Catch-22 situation. I cannot see what benefit there is for TfL, although there must obviously be benefits for the individual developers who want to enter into these limited partnerships with TfL, because I fear that they will seek to ensure that the liabilities are placed on TfL and not themselves.
	Again, let me cite what the Law Commission said, which was quoted by Mr Osband on Friday. He provided the quote directly to the TfL officers and still has not had a response from them. The Law Commission said:
	“We understand this lack of clarity is considered a major defect in the law of limited partnerships in the United Kingdom.”
	Again, a structure has been proposed in the Bill which even the Law Commission now considers relatively opaque in its operation.
	I urge TfL, at this late stage, to reconsider the Bill and whether or not the legislation—certainly the clauses up to clause 7—is actually needed, given the facilities that TfL has for forming partnerships under the existing structures, which are flexible. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington has said that until now TfL has relied upon the sale of land to gain income, but that is no longer the case. It is able to enter into wider partnerships and does not have to rely purely on such sales. This concept of limited partnership is introducing a real vulnerability to the tax payer—the London council tax payer in particular—and the Government who fund Transport for London. I do not understand why TfL wishes to persist with this clause of the Bill.
	I am extremely worried that the general public will not be able to scrutinise development deals if limited partnerships are established, and, even with the Secretary of State’s approval now being floated by TfL as an amendment, that there will not be sufficient political accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith will cite the example of what happened at Earls Court. On the examples that we have so far, this issue of commercial confidentiality has prevented, without resort to law in many instances, the ability of members of the community or individuals who are affected by developments from gaining information on the partnerships —their purposes and their operations. When redacted documents have been offered, they have been redacted in such a way to make them virtually meaningless. I worry that this Bill offers the potential for a whole series of disastrous ventures by TfL on site after site.
	The hon. Member for Harrow East also mentioned taxation. At the meeting on Friday, representatives of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers said that they were concerned about ensuring the transparency of the operation not just of the partnership itself, but of the individual partners who have participated so far under existing structures. They were concerned about their willingness to abide by and adhere to tax legislation in this country and also to some of their responsibilities. At least one company that was mentioned on Friday and that TfL entered into a partnership with is based in a tax haven and is seeking to avoid taxation as a result of its established structure. Again, that is not uncommon, but it is not something that a public body such as TfL should be encouraging. Furthermore, it is not something that we should be seeking to facilitate even further by putting forward this limited partnership proposal.
	The concern is that if such a company is willing to operate from a tax haven to avoid taxation, it is quite likely and quite able to walk away more easily from the liabilities on risks if any venture becomes problematic in the future. Again, it provides us with another example of questionable judgment by TfL. Going into a partnership with a company that is based in a tax haven and that is seeking to avoid its taxation responsibilities does not inspire confidence in the ability of TfL to develop future deals. Such practice may not be unlawful, but it is immoral, and that point was put to TfL on Friday.
	Those are many of the concerns that have been raised in the discussions so far. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith will go into some detail about what has happened at Earls Court. If Members want an example of what could happen under this Bill because of the lack of protection within it and because of the structure that has been put forward with regard to the limited partnership, Earls Court is a classic example. In fact, this Bill was designed to enable TfL to go into a limited partnership specifically with regard to Earls Court. TFL was not able to do that, because the legislation had been delayed for so long, but it went into another form of partnership that has exposed the local community to devastation, almost, and that has exposed TfL to being ripped off for the development.
	Overall, in that example we have seen a complete lack of transparency about the discussions with the limited company. The potential issues with that site and the safe
	operation of the rail transport network have been raised and, as I have mentioned before, there is an increasing threat to social and affordable housing. Indeed, there is even a public health threat because of the air pollution caused by the increased activity around that site, and a threat to some of London’s cultural heritage.
	Concern has been expressed about the lack of an independent economic impact assessment on the development and a lack of accountability to local people and the elected local authority in its current form. This is a shining example of how TfL, although I am sure it has the best of intentions, can be driven by political motives. I know that there have been statements about the nature of the people that some politicians want to live in the area. Mr Greenhalgh, in particular, wanted to remove working-class people from the area and to populate it with wealthier people. That was one of the statements he made publicly, but, regardless of that, TfL seems unable to defend itself against such political diktats from above and demonstrated extreme incompetence in its negotiations with developers and extreme ruthlessness in preventing local people from having a say in the development. That has resulted not just in a degrading exploitation of public assets but a debacle.
	That is the example we would give of Transport for London’s incompetence in dealing with a major strategic site and with speculative property developers. If this legislation goes through, developers in London will binge at the expense of the public sector and TfL in particular. The land assets of TfL have been developed over nearly a century and they are land holdings specifically for development of the transport infrastructure. They are not there for speculative development by TfL to gain some short-term income at a long-term cost to Londoners. The Bill will risk the long-term planning of our transport infrastructure, increase the risk of the liability for property speculation falling on TfL and have an impact on the public purse.
	We gave these warnings on the public-private partnership and we were ignored. We were ignored by the previous Government and, in fact, we were derided for those warnings that came from the RMT, the TSSA and the other unions that were working on the ground on London transport. They warned us and we had report after report that TfL was being ripped off in its dealings with the private sector and that there would be a catastrophe, and that is exactly what happened. The PPP became a disaster: the companies had to be brought into public ownership and control, we lost at least £400 million through payments to advisers, accountants, lawyers and so on and we put TfL at risk. I think that this is what will happen in this case.
	The work force, with their expertise, and those who work deep within the heart of TfL are warning that the property speculation promoted by the Bill will put the long-term infrastructure of transport in London at risk. As I say, I will not oppose the Bill this evening because there is at least one clause on the hedging of protection for pensions that is supported by some elements of the work force, but I hope that by the next stage of our debate TfL will either withdraw some of the clauses, making the Bill workable, or at least provide some form of accountability and set objectives and parameters about the speculative developments that can be undertaken as a result of the powers that TfL will be given. Unless we set those parameters, London’s transport infrastructure
	could be put at risk, and we might face significant costs and burdens. I hope that the House will fulfil its responsibilities by not taking Transport for London’s assertions at face value, but will be looking at the expert evidence with which we have been provided.
	I advise hon. Members to read some of the petitions against the Bill submitted by individuals with expert knowledge of the operation of Transport for London and the consequences of its developments so far. Given that TfL has brought forward, at this late stage, its letter of comfort, it would be useful if we advised it that the petitioners should be not only contacted, but invited to petition again, if they wish, specifically with regard to the amendment to which the letter refers. Although we are yet to see that amendment—we have received only the letter—I would welcome the petitioners’ views on that proposal. I have so far received only a couple of e-mails from those who attended Friday’s meeting, although I know that others have an opinion, and their view is that the amendment proposed in the letter would not save the Bill. They believe that the Bill should be opposed, despite TfL’s assurances. As I said, I shall not oppose the Bill today, but unless we get a definitive view from Transport for London on some of the questions raised in the debate, unless we have clarity about some of the Bill’s provisions and unless we understand how to set parameters for TfL’s operations in this speculative area of development, we will oppose it at a later stage.
	I treat the Bill with real scepticism. It could be a speculator’s charter for the Mayor of London, whoever that might be in the future, and that may well be at a cost to London’s council tax payers. I warn the House that, as was the case with the PPP, the Bill could be a disaster for the taxpayer overall, and if it goes through, I fear that the Mayor and the Transport for London will place a sizeable bill before us in a couple of years because we will have to bail them out for the losses that they have incurred due to speculative development.
	To echo what was said by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), TfL should concentrate on providing transport for London. It is not a property developer. If there was the expertise in TfL to carry out negotiations on such matters, an element of confidence might be inspired in us, but its track record, especially at Earls Court, demonstrates not only that such expertise is lacking, but that it does not even understand that it lacks that expertise. Property speculators run rings around it time and again, and those speculators then go off to international festivals to market sites that were once owned by the public of London. It is scandalous that speculators can make vast profits out of public asset in such a way because of either the connivance or gullibility of the people responsible in TfL.
	I urge hon. Members to pay more direct attention to the Bill. There are few Members in the Chamber today, which I understand, given events in Scotland and elsewhere, but the Bill could be as catastrophic for London as elements of what might happen following the referendum in Scotland. We might not only be presented with an extraordinary bill in the future, but lose considerable assets on which we were hoping to build a modern network for transport in London. While the Bill is in Committee, I hope that we can find sensible amendments that will allow us to set parameters in the Bill to assure us that this leap in the dark will not lead to a future disaster.

Robert Goodwill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on moving Second Reading of this private Bill that will enable TfL to expand its financial freedom to use practices and mechanisms it cannot currently access. We recognise that it will allow TfL to release greater value from its financing arrangements—a principle we welcome at a time when we are continually seeking efficiencies and value for money in public spending.
	The outcome of the 2013 spending review was a 25% cut in TfL’s operational funding from central Government, and we have been clear that the Government’s aim is to reduce TfL’s operational funding over time to zero. That, on top of earlier reductions in TfL’s operational grant, will require it to deliver £16 billion of savings over the period to 2021. TfL has implemented a savings and efficiency programme that will allow it to continue to invest in infrastructure while at the same time holding down fares. TfL has already identified nearly £12 billion of savings to 2020-21, but it still needs to identify further savings. I understand from TfL that the private Bill could realise in excess of £50 million in immediate benefits by improving its hedging power, enabling it to borrow money cost-effectively, and allowing it to make more of its assets.
	We believe that giving TfL greater financial flexibility will give it the opportunity to run its business more efficiently, but in doing so we expect it to adopt a responsible approach in the use of its new powers. I am pleased that the controversial clause on the disposal of operational land, which was a matter of concern to their lordships, has been dropped from the Bill. I understand that the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) still have concerns, but I hope that they are reassured to know that TfL has agreed to table an amendment in Committee to clause 5 that will require TfL to seek the Secretary of State’s agreement when it wishes to form a limited company for commercial property development purposes.
	Subject to what I have said and taking into account the fact that the measure will deliver real savings and efficiencies for council tax payers and fare payers in London, I hope the Bill makes progress today, enabling us to explore in Committee some of the highly pertinent points made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.

Lilian Greenwood: We have already heard some important contributions to today’s debate, but may I begin my speech by saying that it is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) in his place—well, almost in his place—this afternoon? I know he has followed the Bill’s progress closely and that it affects a matter of great concern to his constituents. It is important not only that Hammersmith has a Labour MP, but that Hammersmith and Fulham is now a Labour-run local authority. It was supposed to be the Prime Minister’s favourite council. Well, the people of Hammersmith delivered a resounding verdict on that project last May.
	The Earls Court development in my hon. Friend’s constituency is close to the heart of many people following today’s debate, and I will discuss it in more detail
	shortly, but first I want to say a few words about Transport for London and its current legal framework. The Greater London Authority Act 1999 was one of the longest pieces of legislation passed to date, containing 35 schedules and more than 400 clauses. It was also one of the most important Acts passed in the first term of the last Labour Government. For too long, London’s political governance had been subject to sudden changes imposed by Westminster. Since the second world war, the general pattern was of political interference, and by 1997 there was a serious investment backlog. The transformation since then of the underground, London’s buses and the overground rail network is there for all to see.
	It is to Transport for London’s credit that under devolved management it has risen to the challenge of meeting the rapid rise in demand for public transport. It is also overseeing the successful delivery of Crossrail, and just yesterday a new consultation was published on proposals to extend the Gospel Oak and Barking line to Barking Riverside. It should be acknowledged that over the past 15 years TfL has delivered substantial service improvements.
	As we have heard, this private Bill has a long history. There have been some changes since it was first introduced in 2011, but the current proposals can be summarised as transferring additional borrowing powers to TfL’s subsidiaries and allowing them to enter into limited liability partnerships under clause 5. We are not opposed to the principle of allowing greater commercial freedoms to Transport for London, but it has to be recognised that there are particular sensitivities around the Earls Court development, especially as Hammersmith and Fulham council is now seeking discussions with the developer and carrying out a review of its contractual commitments.
	TfL is the freeholder for Earls Court exhibition centre. The history of that planning application, which the Mayor of London granted last year, is well known. In this climate, the powers contained in clause 5 have attracted a great deal of scrutiny. It is therefore reasonable to ask that in this development and others, TfL should seek to gain the best value for taxpayers’ money while maintaining a commitment to providing decent, affordable homes and taking all other social and environmental factors into consideration, including the future needs of the transport network, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said in his detailed and knowledgeable speech.

Diane Abbott: Is my hon. Friend arguing that the Bill will have an effect on Earls Court? My understanding is that the deal in relation to Earls Court, whether it was a good deal or a bad deal, has already been done.

Lilian Greenwood: My concern is that the Earls Court development is one of the issues potentially affected by this Bill. I think there are further discussions to be had. Perhaps that provides a bit of a precedent, or an example of why concerns are being raised about this Bill.
	It is also reasonable to ask that TfL’s subsidiaries maintain a commitment to those public service values even when they are acting in partnership with commercial developers under the terms of the Bill. Where local
	authorities and other representative groups have dealt directly with TfL, they need to have confidence that past agreements will not be rendered void just because a limited liability partnership has been formed.
	Given the concerns that my hon. Friends have rightly raised, Labour Members expect further reassurances from Transport for London and the Secretary of State. The way in which these powers are used must be subject to scrutiny. It is vital that TfL fully engages with communities and local councils as this Bill progresses through Parliament.

Christopher Chope: As the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said, these extensive powers must be subject to scrutiny and any safeguards in relation to their being exercised must be included in the Bill. We do not want things to happen in future that we had not expected, because, perhaps, we did not think that Transport for London or its subsidiaries would behave in a particular way. That is why I welcome the fact that we have a full Second Reading debate on this Bill. The promoters of a lot of private Bills that come before this House get agitated because some of us think that such Bills should be subject to scrutiny, but an increasing number of our colleagues now recognise that without such scrutiny we and our constituents can be taken for a ride.
	I do not represent a London constituency, although many years ago I was the leader of a London borough, so I take an interest in what happens in London—and of course I am resident in London during much of the week. I go along with the hon. Lady in giving a lot of credit to TfL for the improvements in transport in London over recent years. There have been enormous improvements in the reliability of the services provided, the extent and range of those services, and the sensitive way in which the Mayor and TfL have responded to the developing needs of the populace of London. That is all the more reason for us to ask why, given that TfL has made such an enormous amount of progress, we should want to encourage it, through this Bill, to move its focus away from its main task and responsibility, which is to provide transport for the people of London.
	My hon. Friend the Minister set out the financial context and made it clear that, ultimately, Transport for London will need to be self-sufficient and not dependent on grants from the national taxpayer. I am sure my constituents will be pleased with that objective, because it will save them money as national taxpayers and TfL will have to fund its future operations from the income it receives from fare payers, its investments and operational efficiencies. I am all in favour of that.
	I was interested to hear my hon. Friend say that, of the £16 billion saving that TfL needs to find by 2021, £12 billion has already been identified. He then said, however, that he thought the Bill might save TfL £50 million, which is of a rather different order from the actual gap between the two figures, namely £4 billion.
	TfL should try to save some money. It has a lot of assets and if some of them are not core assets that it requires for its operations, the first port of call should surely be to try to sell off those surplus assets so that they can be utilised by other people. This Bill, however, seems to be designed to discourage TfL from selling off
	its surplus assets. It encourages it to put them into vehicles such as subsidiary companies and limited partnerships, which are not open to the same public scrutiny as TfL through its annual accounts. Obviously, that raises public accountability concerns.
	The Bill’s promoters have a heavy burden of responsibility and they will have quite a job to persuade the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and me. We do not always agree on political issues, but the fact that we are both expressing concerns from different angles should cause TfL to think what can be done about it.

Diane Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Chope: It is a delight to give way to the hon. Lady.

Diane Abbott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The fact that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington agree on something is a sign either that it is absolutely the wrong thing to do or that it might be absolutely the right thing to do. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to TfL attempting to create arrangements for a long-term revenue stream rather than a one-off profit from simply selling the asset. As the taxpayer subsidy goes down, surely it is prudent for TfL to try to ensure long-term revenue streams for itself, which is what the arrangements are all about. They may not be perfect, but how can the hon. Gentleman deny that that is a reasonable aspiration for TfL?

Christopher Chope: The short answer to the hon. Lady’s intervention is: once bitten, twice shy. I think that most of us in this House—certainly those of us who have served for a certain time—feel that we were bitten by the enthusiasm of successive Governments for the private finance initiative and the public-private partnership. We were told that they were new ways of financing our public services and public infrastructure and that they could only be good news for everybody. I speak as a member of the Conservative party, which promoted PFI, but what a disaster some of those PFI projects have turned out to be, largely because people thought they could get something for nothing and that, instead of saving on revenue expenditure, they could start borrowing and use rather obscure vehicles and arrangements to do so. Then, however, after reading the small print, we found out that, instead of being transferred, the risk—that was the principle the Treasury kept talking about in relation to PFI: it said it was not possible to have PFI unless there was a transfer of risk—had actually been retained.
	As a London Member, the hon. Lady will be all too well aware of the problems in London associated with PFI/PPP projects in the health service, which have been a disaster in many respects. The people or the patients whom we should have helped are finding that the services they want are not now as good as they would like because of the costs of those projects, which in some cases continue to be a millstone around the necks of quite a lot of hospital trusts.
	I have answered the hon. Lady by referring to a different sphere, but as soon as people start talking about new practices and methods, as the Minister did when he began his remarks about how the Bill will
	release a lot of revenue and capital, we need to be suspicious. At the end of the day, the only way to get better quality transport in London is by investing in it, which means using money from fare payers or taxpayers, or encouraging Transport for London to reduce its costs and find alternative revenue streams. Of course, one way would be to sell off surplus assets, and we should use the provisions of the Bill to encourage that, rather than to discourage it.
	I do not know about the situation in Earls Court exhibition centre. I have no specialised knowledge about it, and I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who represents the Hammersmith and Fulham interest in it. As a result of the last London borough elections, the issue of political risk has once again raised its head. The people engaged in that project thought that the council was benignly supportive of their proposal, but now that there has been a change of council, the new democratically elected council has said that it wants to revisit it all. I do not know the extent to which the council can do that, or whether the contract was already a done deal.

Andy Slaughter: I have resisted intervening because I want to get my full whack of time, but I have to come in on that point. There was always going to be a political risk in relation to that massive site—it covers two boroughs, with the mayoralty and various other interests, such as that of TfL—because it was a 20-year project. TfL signed up to a 20-year project, and tied its hands. It, above all people with political masters, should have known that that was the case.

Christopher Chope: That is fascinating. I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. When there is talk about reducing risks—the statement from the promoters states that the Bill will reduce risk and the costs of interest—we need to look at such assertions with quite a lot of scepticism.
	To finish my point about TfL as the freeholder of Earls Court exhibition centre, let me ask why it is still the freeholder: why does TfL need to own Earls Court exhibition centre, and why does TfL not sell it? I do not know whether it could sell it to Hammersmith and Fulham council. In my view, TfL’s core business should not be to own an exhibition centre. If that had been the situation in my days in Wandsworth, we would very much have regarded it as one of those things to sell and get rid off to benefit local taxpayers, on the basis that if a freehold asset is sold, the receipts from it can be utilised immediately for the vendor’s top priorities. If TfL did not own the freehold of Earls Court exhibition centre, would it think of buying it? That is the sort of question that should be asked by those people who become star-struck by the idea that they are charged with developing some great property.
	There has always been a glamour associated with owning assets. Municipalisation, whether of race courses or arts and entertainment centres, was often associated with the desire of the mayor and councillors to be able to get free tickets and hospitality by using what they saw as their role in looking after those important assets. My philosophical view is that they should never have had those assets in the first place. They should have sold them off and then enjoyed going out, paying for a drink themselves and saying, “Great. We’ve reduced the size
	of the local state and its apparatchiks in our area.” I am suspicious and sceptical about all of this. There are some fine people working for TfL, but if they think that they have skills that can be deployed in the property sector, they should go and get a job in the property sector.
	I am particularly concerned about clause 4, which is the first clause of substance in the Bill. It proposes that what TfL cannot do itself should be allowed to be done by its subsidiaries. Members often speak of their concern about Henry VIII clauses, and this clause is the private Bill equivalent. It would allow TfL to set up subsidiaries at its own behest without any accountability, and those subsidiaries could then be used to do what TfL itself is not allowed to do. Why are we countenancing that? Why should the original safeguards, which were written into primary legislation—section 164(a) of the 1999 Act—be removed? My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said that if one had to go to the Public Works Loan Board or get bonds, one would have to pay higher interest rates than those one could get using these new subsidiaries as vehicles, but I think that is an unproven assertion. Let us consider other ways in which those things could be done.
	Clause 5 would extend the power to invest in subsidiary companies to include limited partnership vehicles of one sort or another. Why are we doing that? Surely it would be much more transparent for TfL to set up a limited company that is properly accountable and then ensure that it produces accounts so that people can keep an eye on what it is doing. As soon as we get into the murky waters of partnerships and deal making that is not subject to public scrutiny, the people are not well served. It might be that among the well-paid employees of TfL there is a group of people who are much better than the directors of British Land at making deals to enhance the value of land in their ownership, but I somehow doubt it. Rather than encouraging TfL to aspire to set up subsidiaries that are like British Land, we should say that if it wants to set up subsidiaries, they should be proper companies that, as under the existing law, are subject to limited liability and open to public scrutiny.
	We know that when we allow public organisations effectively to engage in devices to get themselves out of a short or longer term financial fix, it often results in tears. I remember when Hammersmith and Fulham was mortgaging all its lamp standards. It sold them—was it to a Japanese bank? I cannot remember—and it then leased them back because it obviously needed to have lamp standards. Those were the early days of what one might describe as a sort of barmy behaviour by Labour councils—that was one of the things that ultimately contributed to Hammersmith and Fulham becoming a Conservative-controlled authority.
	There are examples of councils selling their assets then leasing them back and paying a lot more for them in the long term, but in the short term it looks good on the accounts. The council has a capital receipt from the sale of the asset, although local taxpayers will have to pay for the next 50 years for the consequences. That was at a time when the Department of the Environment, as it was then, made clear to the banks that we would not guarantee those assets. The banks thought, “Fantastic. We will buy all these lamp standards from Hammersmith
	and Fulham, and because we are buying them from Hammersmith and Fulham, if there are any difficulties, the money it owes us will be guaranteed by the Government.” The Department had to make clear to those foreign banks that if Hammersmith and Fulham, or any other council, defaulted on its obligations, the Government were not going to stand behind it.
	I fear that some of the same thinking is creeping into this Bill, which is that in order to get over the problem of the £4 billion shortfall we should allow the proliferation of these vehicles. As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed out, if one couples clause 4 with the schedule, the mind boggles at all the things that could be charged by a TfL subsidiary without the consent of the Secretary of State—always remembering, of course, that under its existing powers TfL is not allowed to subject those things to a charge. If that measure were to go through unamended, it would create the potential for enormous mischief not just to London taxpayers, but to people who use TfL facilities. If Transport for London gets strapped for cash, it will have to put up its fares, reduce staffing or whatever, so the situation would not be without consequences.
	I have a number of concerns about the Bill and I hope that some of them can be ironed out during the opposed Bill Committee. Underlying them all is that fact that I think it would be better if Transport for London concentrated on its core business and sought more equity investment—in other words, shareholder investment. Why does Transport for London not set up a subsidiary company, as it can do at the moment, and say, “We are going to sell shares in this limited company to the people of London”? Why not sell shares to users of Transport for London services? Why does it not raise that sort of money and, for good measure, say, “As an incentive, we will throw the assets of the Earls Court exhibition centre into the subsidiary company”? People who enjoy going to exhibitions at Earls Court could buy into that subsidiary company and perhaps get discounted entry prices, or whatever.
	There is a lack of imagination in some of this, possibly because this process has been dragged out for so long that people have got into a tramline way of looking at it. Why do we not think more radically? Why do we need to be stuck with TfL, however good it is, and the same structure? Why do we not allow British taxpayers and property owners to buy shares in TfL, instead of using this sort of device, which will probably give the benefits to sovereign wealth funds, foreign banks, Russian oligarchs and whoever? They will be benefiting at the expense of the people of London. As somebody who was born in London, has spent a lot of time in London and had the privilege of leading a London council, I have the interests of the people of London at heart.

Andy Slaughter: I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for their excellent contributions, not least because they will allow me to be more succinct.
	I was impressed by the knowledge of the hon. Member for Christchurch of landownership in west London. I do not have the same knowledge about Christchurch.
	Without wishing to go off on a tangent, however, I must say that his knowledge of politics in west London is not so good. Though other councils did, I do not think that Hammersmith and Fulham council ever engaged in the selling off and buying back of lamp posts. It indulged in capital market swaps, which is perhaps more historically famous, but that began under a Conservative council, as I know because I was chair of finance and was involved in unravelling all that, and we were granted, as a privilege for doing so, 15 years of glorious rule thereafter. He has conflated political events, therefore, but I forgive him because his summation of the arguments against the Bill was so good.
	I would be interested in this Bill in any event, being a London MP and given the many concerns, which I will not repeat, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and the hon. Member for Christchurch, who from their different political perspectives have put their finger on the issues at stake, but I have an additional and perhaps more specific—some might say parochial—interest. I can demonstrate that the origin of the proposals lie in the Earls Court-West Kensington development in west London and might well end there, unless things happen.
	I shall say more about that development in a moment, but first I want to resolve the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about, “Hasn’t the Earls Court deal already been done?”. Yes, part of the deal—concerning the exhibition centres—has been done, to the extent that the partnership agreement has been entered into, but the other major part of the site, also owned by TfL, the Lillie Bridge depot, is a minimum of five or six years down the line.
	In any event, what happened at Earls Court is highly relevant to the Bill, and had the developer not pushed to get on with the proposals and had TfL not delayed the Bill, I suspect that the original idea would have been exactly the sort of vehicle envisaged in clause 5 and that the clause would have been used for the first part of the scheme.

John McDonnell: For the record, I can confirm that point. On 6 May, TfL and Sir Peter Hendy CBE wrote to the RMT that TfL
	“may only use a company limited by shares as the joint venture vehicle”.
	So that facility is open to them. He wrote:
	“The new powers will be of most relevance to joint ventures with the private sector involving property development”,
	and he
	“anticipated that any such projects will be done using a partnership structure. Indeed, the choice of joint venture vehicle for the Earls Court development would have been different if TfL had the powers it is now seeking.”

Andy Slaughter: I am juggling a lot of papers here, so I am most grateful that my hon. Friend had that letter to hand to confirm the point.
	It is important to note the ideas and the opportunity that came out of the Earls Court scheme. Let us be clear that this scheme is the Tennessee Valley authority in all of this: it is not just a scheme; it is a magic scheme—an £8 billion development and currently the largest site
	under planning development in London. It will remain so until the High Speed 2 site, also in my borough, comes along.
	As to the history, it has been pointed out that the legislation for the scheme was presented to Parliament on 29 November 2010. It had an uneventful Second Reading on 13 December 2011, largely because it was below the radar for many people. Before I come on to the current petitioners, I must thank the then petitioner Mark Ballaam on behalf of the West London Line group, which is a fantastic organisation. It would be absolutely wrong to call it an amateur group. It had such a degree of professional expertise that it became the de facto guardian of the railway system in west London, doing a huge amount to promote it.
	The group spotted what TfL was up to and got its petition in. Were it not for that group, I am not sure whether we would ever have got the first major concession. The Bill came before the Unopposed Bill Committee of the House of Lords, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has mentioned. It is peculiar when we go back and look at these documents: there had to be a corrected transcript because the first entry in Hansard showed that there was no debate or discussion at all. In fact, we have quoted from the quite substantive debate that took place.
	There is a slight confusion because the clause numbers have changed. What was discussed in the earlier debate as clause 5 is now clause 4. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington rightly pointed out, what appeared to be a major concession was not quite such a concession because of the schedule that lists all the circumstances under which TfL can continue to dispose of land.
	It was said to the Chair of that Lords Committee:
	“My Lord, I would mention that following discussions with DfT, TfL has proposed certain amendments to Clause 5”—
	now clause 4,
	“which are contained in the filled-up Bill before the Committee today, and those amendments provide that TfL subsidiaries may not grant security without the consent of the Secretary of State, other than in respect of those matters that are specified in a new schedule proposed to be included in the Bill.”
	Yes, there was a concession, but it might have been more apparent than real. It was to deal effectively with the objections at that stage in January this year. The issue limped on until it arrived here, with no urgency or hurry at all as far as I can see—until very recently when things take on a frenetic aspect.
	With the petitioners, I have had three lengthy meetings with TfL, the last of which was attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington last Friday. That is good; I am glad that it is prepared to put in that time. It is an important Bill to TfL and it has been courteous throughout the process. That is true, but it concerns me that, having allowed things to drift for four years, it has now taken on this extraordinary degree of urgency. Similarly, it concerned me when the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said that we should support the Bill because it would make public-private partnerships run rather more smoothly. I do not think we want anything like PPP to be run more smoothly. There are lessons for us to learn that we do not want to be repeated in the context of this Bill.
	Yesterday, the letter arrived, as has been said, following the Friday meeting. It said:
	“We have considered the comments made at the meeting regarding clause 5 and the concerns expressed and, consequently, TfL intends to propose an amendment to clause 5. The amendment will insert a new sub-clause in clause 5 which will provide that TfL must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent to form, promote or assist a limited partnership when the purpose for it doing so is to carry on the development of land otherwise than for the purposes of TfL’s functions.”
	Well, so be it. That is another attempt to deal with the objections that have been received in an emollient way, albeit at the eleventh hour. The concession has been made, and it is right that it should have been made, just as it was right that it should have been made in relation to what is now clause 4. However, it misses the point of our objection—at least, my objection, and what I understand to be the objection of the petitioners—which is that we do not think that this is the right approach for TfL to take. The fact that there will be a check is helpful, but we would prefer the clause not to be included in the Bill at all.

John McDonnell: During the meeting that my hon. Friend and I attended on Friday, one of the points raised—and it has been raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope)—concerned not the principle of limited partnership, but the need to establish some sense of the scale of these operations. In July, my hon. Friend had a meeting with a Mr Graeme Craig of Transport for London, during which Mr Craig said that TfL had 5,700 acres of land across London, and approximately 800 archways. There was a list of schemes involving South Kensington, Baker Street, Old Street, Oxford Circus, Victoria, Golders Green and Northwood stations. Whether we look at the schedule, which relates to charges against land, or whether we look at clause 5, which provides for developments by a limited partnership, we are talking about a huge property portfolio for potential development with the private sector.

Andy Slaughter: Absolutely. I do not know whether I am right in suggesting that Earls Court was the fons et origo of that, but in any event the potential for it across London is huge. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Christchurch pointed out, the potential for it to go wrong is huge, and I think that that is what is going to happen.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for complimenting me earlier on what I had had to say. May I ask whether he thinks that TfL should sell off many of these surplus assets, rather than risking the setting up of vehicles for their development?

Andy Slaughter: I am coming to that point. I have given the House the benefit of what could be described as my knowledge of how things have progressed so far and what concessions have been made, but it is clear that clause 5 is intended to enable such vehicles to be set up, along with deals with pension funds and development partners for the management of secondary incomes to create income streams.
	Obviously—this brings me back to the point that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was making—if
	TfL manages its property portfolio in the best interests of the farepayer with the aim of keeping fares down and, indeed, reducing them, I do not object to its finding ways of establishing the best return on assets, provided that those ways are legitimate and sound. In some cases, that might involve not selling an asset and investing the money at what would possibly be a low rate of return, but embarking on some form of joint venture. However, let me now deal with the rest of what I am against. I promise that, before I finish, I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about whether sales per se are simply a better option, and whether we trust them.
	There is a sense in which I would say yes to that. I do not want to be rude to TfL’s management, because I think that many of them are very good at what they do, particularly on the technical side. On the whole, however, they are no match for the major property developers of London. I am afraid that the same could be said about local authority regeneration and planning officers. Property developers see them coming and fleece them for everything that they have, which is very unfortunate. It is particularly unfortunate because it is our money. What is presented in the first instance as a way of maximising return for the farepayer ends up with the poor old farepayer— and the taxpayer—picking up the major share of the bill. I think that when I say a little about Earls Court the House will understand exactly what I mean, because that is the best example.
	It surprised me to learn that, unlike local authorities and other public bodies, TfL does not have a duty of best value under section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972. It says that it still tries to obtain best value for a site—presumably from a commercial point of view as much as for any other reason—but for a public body such as TfL this is a balancing exercise.
	Of course we want TfL to maximise the return on its assets in the interests of its core business, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, but we also want it, as a public body under democratic control, to behave responsibly in environmental, social and economic terms. I fear that we are getting the worst of both worlds. We are getting poor-quality development, poor-quality decision making and poor-quality financial return. Therefore, the point about TfL’s area of competence is a serious one. I do not make it as a debating point to have a go at TfL. I wish it every success. But I have seen the evidence with my own eyes over many years.
	Another reservation is to do with the collateral effects. Again, I will be brief on those, because they have been dealt with. According to the committee minutes, there will be some tax benefits in avoiding stamp duty, at least for TfL—it is a moot point whether we think that is a good thing to do or not—but when the benefits of avoiding tax go to the partner, that is a concern. As is the case with the Earls Court partner, major multinational property companies are avoiding paying UK tax by being registered in Jersey. TfL is facilitating that. That is plain wrong. A lack of transparency comes from the limited partnership model, rather than the limited liability partnership model. That is also plain wrong.
	I also think, to put it crudely, that TfL is getting into bed with some dodgy characters. If they are not dodgy characters, then the people those people are getting into bed with are certainly dodgy. Capco, developers of Earls Court, has a partnership with the Kwok brothers,
	who are on trial for fraud in Hong Kong. When I put it to TfL last Friday that it should not be in that company, it said, “We have no association with the Kwoks”, but they signed a section 106 agreement for the site they were developing.
	Let me give this example because it makes the point. The Earls Court area is subject to a masterplan. That was devised by Capco and everyone fell into line: the Mayor of London fell into line, as did TfL and the two Conservative-controlled boroughs. Therefore, we had the obscenity of a planning framework being designed around a planning application and of allowing a developer to act as predator on almost 80 acres of prime land in central London without any competition. The developer dictated its terms over a period of years, feeling that it had such pliant partners that it could do whatever it had to do.
	As the hon. Member for Christchurch, who is long in the tooth and rather shrewder than a lot of politicians, said, that may work for a year or two or even five, but it will not work for longer than that and sooner or later there will be a change of regime in Hammersmith and Fulham and the apple cart will be upset. Possibly, in a year and a half, there will be a change of control at city hall and these schemes will still be in their infancy. Yet TfL has signed up to that masterplan, which I can evidence is not just a terrible scheme for the whole of west London but a terrible financial deal for the public sector partners.
	All that land is being lost. Those premier exhibition centres in London contribute 16% of exhibition space in the UK and 30% of exhibition space in London. We will lose over 750 good-quality affordable homes, which will be demolished to make way for unaffordable homes. We will also lose the main engineering and maintenance depot for TfL and even TfL admits it does not know how it will cope without it. The first I heard about the move to Acton was when the hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned it today. It may have been a surprise to the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton. It was certainly a surprise to me.
	At the Friday meeting and previously, I was told by TfL that there were no plans, that the operational decisions had not been taken and probably would not be taken until 2020. However, it is a question not only of manufacture and maintenance but of the stabling of the trains. At the moment, TfL says that they have nowhere else to go. Therefore, we have a peculiar situation in which TfL has signed and voluntarily bound itself up to that masterplan, a terrible financial plan, a terrible social deal for my constituents and a terrible deal for the economic life of west London even though it is not in a position to deliver on it and does not look as if it ever will be. I cannot believe that by 2020 there will not have been some change in political control that would rule that out entirely. That is what I mean by the naivety, for want of a better word, in the way it has operated these schemes.
	We have some of the players from the earlier debate here. The Minister and the shadow Minister and myself are present, and I wish we still had my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), because we had a very similar debate about the plans for HS2. As was largely not the case with Old Oak Common but is largely the case with King’s Cross, they involved going into an area that was already populated and
	already had housing that people wanted to live in and jobs people that wanted to do, and they were sold on the belief that it was a good commercial deal for the owner of that site. In my view it is simply unacceptable for that to happen. It is unacceptable that there should be that loss of homes—affordable, good-quality homes that people have occupied for 40 or 50 years—and their being demolished simply to hand over a site.
	Yes, TfL got a terrible deal, but Hammersmith and Fulham council got an extraordinarily negligent deal that has to be investigated. It sold 23 acres of prime residential land for a net sum of £50 million, except within that £50 million it has to pay for the relocation and the purchase of the properties on that land, and with every month that property prices rise, that net sum is decreasing. Hammersmith and Fulham council—under its new Labour ownership, but gifted by its previous Conservative administration—could end up actually owing money for having given away 23 acres of prime land and having to displace 2,000 people who did not want to be displaced. That is what is happening in west London at the moment but it is on the basis of that strategy and plan that TfL wants to go forward with this kind of proposal. Can you wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not terribly happy by it pursuing this course of action?

Christopher Chope: What the hon. Gentleman has said is fascinating. Does he accept that what he has just described is available to us because of the transparency of the existing arrangements? However, if this Bill goes through, it may not be so easy in the future to be able to describe exactly what happens because there will not be that transparency.

Andy Slaughter: I have to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although it has not been that transparent: it has taken rather a lot of work, over the last six of seven years and I am probably prematurely grey as a consequence of that. It has been like getting blood out of a stone, and so much work has been done, not primarily by me, but by the residents, the RMT, and people like my colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the petitioners. They have worked day and night on this and have harried these people who are so irresponsible with the public assets that they hold—all public land at Earls Court, all being squandered and given away to developers, for losses of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds.

John McDonnell: The greyness becomes my hon. Friend, by the way, but on the point he is making, the issue is that a limited liability company will lodge its accounts at Companies House, whereas a limited partnership has no responsibility to do that, so even then there will be complete opaqueness about the financial transactions of that limited partnership.

Andy Slaughter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
	I was going to talk more about the formal instrument, but we have heard quite a lot about that already and I hope we will have more time to look at it in Committee. I also hope that if this Bill does go ahead we will at least remove this pernicious clause 5.
	Before concluding, however, I must make two final points. The first is that I must pay tribute to the petitioners. Richard Osband has been quoted at length and he is an absolute star. He is a constituent of mine and he was a property developer. He bought a house on the west Kensington estate, a large council estate in my constituency, because he liked the area and he wanted to live there, and he is utterly affronted by the fact that he is being forced out of his home—that, with the connivance of public authorities, his home is being compulsorily purchased and he is being chucked out of it in order to do this terrible deal. I must also mention Joss Bell and Anabela Hardwick. Anabela is also a constituent of mine and Joss is an environmental campaigner, and they are also petitioners, and the next stage with this will involve their formidable talents being ranged against TfL.
	I shall end my speech in a moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington is waiting patiently to speak, but I want to make one more point about the sale of land. Until recently, TfL owned Shepherd’s Bush market. Indeed, I think it still owns part of the freehold. The market is not only an iconic London market but a massively important asset to my constituents. It sells relatively low-priced and incredibly varied produce, with a wider range of ethnic produce than almost any other market in London. It is highly successful. The only thing that makes it less successful is the fact that its landlord, TfL, has failed to maintain it. Every stall is let, and it is very popular, but what has TfL done? Rather than take the revenue stream, it has sold it to facilitate the demise and destruction of the market and the building of 200 luxury flats on the site. I am pleased to say, however, that with the help of local residents and shopkeepers, the new Hammersmith and Fulham council is endeavouring to prevent that from happening.
	How contradictory is that? Is this new policy of setting up these wonderful joint ventures instead of selling off sites, as we have seen in Earls Court, going to spread across London? It is a policy that TfL appears to have no control over but every liability for. The partnership in Earls Court is with a £2 company with no covenant strength based in Jersey. If things go wrong and the project goes belly up, that company could be dissolved and the parent company, Capco, which has all the assets, could simply walk away. Who would be left to pick up the tab? It would be TfL. In the meantime, however, it has sold off substantial assets—namely, the freehold of its property in Earls Court—for a 37% stake. In my view, the way in which TfL negotiated that deal is almost criminal, yet we are being asked to give it more powers to do more of the same. That is absolutely not on. In Shepherd’s Bush, TfL had an income stream from a successful market that needed just a little investment, but for political reasons, it sold the development to facilitate another developer making a mint out of it.
	I put it to the hon. Member for Christchurch that TfL gets it wrong every time, whether it is selling property or entering into a deal. It needs rather more financial rigour and better financial officers. It also needs to be less ambitious about being a property developer and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has said, more ambitious when it comes to managing our money and providing reliable bus and tube services.
	If TfL focused a little more on that, rather than on spending four years getting this needless Bill through, we would have a better transport system in London.

Diane Abbott: I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), and in particular to all the ups and downs of the developments in Earls Court and Shepherd’s Bush.
	This debate is taking place under the long shadow of public-private partnerships and private finance initiatives—two wholly misconceived financial fixes designed to achieve public sector good. I will take this opportunity to say that PFI is of narrow merit and normally suited to capital projects that have a natural revenue stream, such as toll bridges. I certainly did not support the vast extension of PFI that happened under my own Government; nor did I support the misconceived PPP for public transport.
	I can understand the scepticism being expressed by Members on both sides as a result of local authorities trying to be clever with financial instruments. However, I was taken aback by the headlong attack on the management of TfL by my good Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. He accused them of wanting to go on a property development binge and of sacrificing the long-term strategic interests of transport in London to property development. That is a tiny bit unfair.

John McDonnell: Let me make this clear. TfL is working under the political direction of the current Mayor of London. This is about Boris Johnson selling off sites to speculator friends to try to bail himself out following the cuts that have been made by this Government. This is not an attack on the individual officers of TfL—far from it. There is political direction behind this.

Diane Abbott: I will come on to deal with political direction later. The point I make is that on the long-term strategic development of transport in London the key elements in the current TfL management have an exemplary record, be it under a Mayor for whom I did not vote or under a Mayor for whom I did vote twice. It is a little unfair to accuse them of not having any long-term strategic vision. A lot of what has been spoken about by my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Hammersmith, and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is the consequence not of malign forces within TfL’s management, but an overheated property market in London, predatory developments and a climate of tax avoidance generally among multinationals. The House must address such things. We need changes in planning law; enhancement of local authority powers; and fiscal measures to deal with issues relating to the overheated property market in London and some of the consequences.

Andy Slaughter: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Diane Abbott: I will not, because I am mindful of the time and I believe there is a wish to close this debate at 7.15 pm.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, much of what is happening is due to financial pressures from the Government—they would
	say that they are obliged to do this. It is important not to confuse TfL, which was named throughout this debate, with the Mayor of London. It is not my role to stand up to defend him, but I would want to defend the long-term, responsible, strategic approach taken by the management of TfL.
	There is no question that there is a danger that TfL may be dazzled by the glories of the property world. I was looking on TfL’s website at what it says about itself and property development. It states:
	“Transport for London is a brand that is recognised around the world and owns great properties in prime locations. Our unique selling point is the:
	Location of our assets
	Impressive property space”
	and so on. Clearly, it sounds like people who are perhaps overly dazzled by the notion of being property developers, but I remind the House that it is not a question of TfL buying and selling property just to make a profit; TfL, in the course of its activity, has acquired assets that could be developed, be it airspace above tube stations, bus stations, disused depots, archways, surplus London underground land or large-scale transport projects. It is not as if TfL has been wilfully engaged in property development; it has these assets, which in some cases have transpired because of changes in the nature of public transport and in technical aspects relating to transport, and clearly it wants to do the best with them. I do not think TfL has any aspirations to be a property developer.

John McDonnell: Come to Earls Court.

Diane Abbott: I do not think TfL has any aspirations to be a property developer; I think TfL would argue that it does not simply want to sell off assets in a one-off manner, as some Members have suggested. It wants to construct a way to have long-term revenue streams to pay for things, such as bus service enhancement. TfL can get capital, but revenue is harder to come by.
	I listened with great care to what was said about Earls Court and it seems to me that the Earls Court deal may have been misconceived; it may be one of those unfortunate instances where the public sector was out-negotiated by private developers. The only point I wanted to make in
	this debate is that, in addition to the undoubtedly passionate attacks on TfL, we must give TfL credit for its stewardship of London’s transport system over the years. I hope that in Committee the Bill can be improved, so that whatever vehicles emerge from it ensure fairness on both sides of the agreement. Given the constraints under which TfL operates and given an overheated property market, which is not its responsibility, Members would be unreasonable in not seeing the need for TfL, and in not allowing TfL, to go forward with measures that it hopes will provide it with ongoing revenue. As for this being a quick fix, it surprises me that Members can say that a Bill that has taken five years to get this far is a quick fix. I understand what my colleagues are saying, and I am particularly concerned about what I have heard about Earls Court, but let us give the management of TfL just a little credit going forward.

Bob Blackman: We have had a full and reasoned debate on the principles of the Bill. The hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) have raised reasonable concerns that need to be considered in detail in Committee. On behalf of the promoters of the Bill, let me say that the key is allowing Transport for London the opportunity to borrow money at lower interest rates and to reduce the risk for Londoners as a whole, and that is something of which we should all approve.
	The issue of ensuring that Secretary of State approval is given for any such venture is a concession to be taken in Committee. The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) raised a series of legitimate issues that need to be considered. I thank the Minister for his support and contribution. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) set out what was almost a mini-manifesto for a bid possibly for another position in the future.
	I hope that the Bill is given a Second Reading. I trust that it will proceed now to Committee and then to law in due course.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Buckinghamshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Second Reading

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I thank Members involved in the previous Bill for allowing me to come in as the bridesmaid after the main event. I was worried that we would not get our chance, so I am grateful to all the Members concerned for the constraint that they showed when debating a very important Bill for London.
	The Bill was first introduced in another place, and has gone through all its stages there. It is a private Bill promoted by my own county council in Buckinghamshire. During the course of consultation, no petitions were deposited against the Bill by interested parties in either House, so we are talking about a modest and uncontroversial measure.
	I pay tribute to Mr Emyr Thomas of Sharpe Pritchard, our parliamentary agent, who has provided commendable professional advice on the passage of this Bill. The Bill’s overall objective is to assist the council in continuing to encourage the film industry to produce films in Buckinghamshire by formalising the legal position as regards the closure of highways for the purposes of filming and to enable objects to be placed on the highways and used for those purposes. The Bill is precedented in private Acts promoted first by the London boroughs and Transport for London in 2008, by Kent county council in 2010 and, most recently, by Hertfordshire county council in 2014. The film industry that is referred to includes not just movie makers but the producers of television programmes and advertisements. It also includes film-making by charitable organisations and film students.
	Most Members know how important the film industry is to the UK. The industry directly employs about 43,900 workers and contributes about £1.6 billion to our GDP and £490 million to the Exchequer.
	Buckinghamshire has a long tradition of film-making, and the county council supports the film industry, which it considers to be an important part of the Buckinghamshire economy.
	Buckinghamshire is located in the so-called super-region of the south-east of England, which accounts for approximately 60% of the UK’s film and television production. It is home to 22 production companies that serve different sectors of the industry, including feature films, animation, TV, digital production and corporate films. One of these, of course, is Pinewood studios, which is renowned as a leading provider of studio and related services to the film and television industry.
	Pinewood studios opened back in 1936 and over the past 78 years it has played host to several huge blockbuster films and numerous iconic television series. Most people watching the debate will know that the “Carry On”, “Superman”, “Star Wars” and “Harry Potter” series were all produced at Pinewood, as were “Alien”, “Batman”, “Love Actually”, “Mamma Mia!” and, of course, 20 James Bond films, and I have had the pleasure in the past of being on a film set in Pinewood for one of those James Bond films. Pinewood is the home of the largest sound stage in Europe—it is called the Albert R Broccoli 007
	stage, and it truly is magnificent—as well as of the Richard Attenborough stage, which is dedicated to the late Sir Richard’s large body of work in film and television. May I say, having worked for two years with Sir Richard Attenborough and David Puttnam on British film year back in the ’80s, that he was a treasure to work for and will be much missed? It is fitting that we have a stage at Pinewood named after him. In June 2014, there were reports that a £200 million expansion plan for Pinewood studios, which will make it rival the Hollywood sets, had been approved. That will be a great jewel in the crown of Buckinghamshire.
	Adjacent to Pinewood studios is Black park, a popular film location offering large areas of heath and woodland. The 500 acre site is used extensively for filming. Recent productions include “Casino Royale”, “Snow White and the Huntsman”, “Jack Ryan” and Kenneth Branagh’s forthcoming film, “Cinderella”, which will be released in 2015. Over the past year or so, West Wycombe park, the Ashridge estate, Waddesdon manor, Basildon manor and the Hughenden estate have hosted productions such as “A Little Chaos”, “Maleficent”, “The Monuments Men” and “The World’s End”. They were all filmed in Buckinghamshire.
	Those who have heard me opine about HS2 will know that it is no word of a lie that the county contains a rich diversity of landscape that is frequently used by film-makers for location filming. There are quiet country lanes, picturesque towns and villages and urban settings. The proximity of those locations to the studios and the fact that the county is on London’s doorstep help to ensure that Buckinghamshire remains a popular filming location and a place to which new films will be attracted.
	The Beaconsfield film studios, which opened back in 1922, were the site of the first British talking movie but are now the home of the national film and television school, headed by Nik Powell, whose credits include “The Company of Wolves”, “Mona Lisa”, “Scandal” and “The Crying Game”—for those who are interested, they were all Oscar nominated. He runs the school, which employs about 30 industry professionals, including Stephen Frears. Its 220 or so students produce about 100 films a year in and around Buckinghamshire and the school has some notable alumni, including the director of “Harry Potter”, David Yates, and, of course, Nick Park, who was the creator and director of our very own “Wallace and Gromit”, a set of characters that is familiar to those on the Opposition Benches, at least, and on which we all look with much affection.
	Filming is very good for our local economy. For instance, a considerable proportion of the film budget is spent on local facilities such as hotels, restaurants, retailers, transport companies, florists, construction materials, location fees and directly employed local people. It is estimated that for every £1 spent on production, £2.50 goes into the local economy. It is therefore really important that Buckinghamshire retains its position as an attractive place for the film industry that offers genuine advantages. As part of the council’s commitment to increasing economic investment in the county and ensuring that Buckinghamshire benefits from the film industry’s presence, the council is keen to encourage more location shoots and investment in our studios.
	In November 2013, the Bill was deposited in the Lords, and it has cleared all its stages in the other place. Why is it needed? The existing position in law is that it is
	an offence wilfully to obstruct free passage along the highway. Coupled with that, a highways authority has a statutory duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which it is the authority. What constitutes an obstruction is a matter of fact and degree in each case, but it is safe to say that if a film-maker prohibited people from proceeding along a road either on foot or in a vehicle for anything longer than the briefest period, that would be likely to amount to an obstruction. If the stopping up of or interference with a highway is authorised by statute, that provides a defence to any prosecution for obstruction. Utility companies have such powers, as do the police and local authorities, but the provisions are always drafted so that the powers allow interference with the highway for specific purposes. It is important to note that the council’s proposals are fully supported by our local police.
	Why is it important to allow the closure of our highways? It is not the case that there is just a perception that film-makers might go elsewhere to shoot without proper powers to allow the council to close roads, because I can give hon. Members an example of that happening. Vodafone recently wanted to film an advertisement in Buckinghamshire involving the closure of a road. The council explained that it did not have the power to close the road as the company wanted, so I am afraid that Vodafone went elsewhere. The council is worried that Buckinghamshire could lose its locational and competitive advantages, and economic benefits through the supply chain, unless it is covered by legislation similar to that enjoyed in London, Kent and Hertfordshire.

Greg Knight: As most films, and indeed adverts, are months or years in the planning, why would clause 3 give the council the power immediately to make a prohibition of traffic order?

Cheryl Gillan: My right hon. Friend made interventions during the House’s consideration of the Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Act 2014. It is not rocket science; it is simply weather, weather, weather. The inclemency of the British weather means that there is sometimes a need for film crews immediately to take the opportunity to film on our roads. The immediacy for which the Bill provides offers great assistance.

Robert Goodwill: I have heard the measure referred to as a “sunshine clause”, which explains exactly why it is in the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful little ray of sunshine in our debate.

Peter Bottomley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which she is setting out the case for the Bill. As someone who has lived in a home where filming takes place on the road once or twice a year, I have never yet heard a neighbour complain if they have been given reasonable notice, which is to be expected, and if the time of filming is limited to hours or even days.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful for that helpful intervention and I think that the people of Buckinghamshire feel exactly the same. Indeed, people are always delighted to
	see our towns, villages and streets on screen not only in some of our wonderful television productions, but as locations in big feature films. The Bill also offers protections.

Greg Knight: My concerns are about not the local person, who might well be aware that a film crew is in the area, but the motorist who is travelling through the area but might not have received adequate notice that a road will be closed. What attempts will the council make to ensure that motorists travelling through the area are given adequate notice that they should use an alternative road?

Cheryl Gillan: May I commend my right hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in motoring matters and who I know has a fine collection of cars himself. The council has a code of practice, readily available on its website, entitled, “Filming on Highways: Buckinghamshire County Council Code of Practice”. The council has already drawn up draft proposals in the eventuality that the Bill is passed by the House. When consulting the Department for Transport, it has entered into provisions and given undertakings about placing well sited notices and giving as much warning as possible. Like my right hon. Friend, I know how annoying it is to find one cannot go somewhere, and one can see all the film vans. I therefore hope that the notices will have been adequately covered in the rules and guidelines that will be readily available to the public, and the council gave the Department for Transport assurances about notification to fire, ambulance and police services, and so on. We hope that the disruption will be minimised and a great deal of thought will be given to road users, as my right hon. Friend wants.

Christopher Chope: The film order can last for five days—or is it seven days?—and there can be six film orders each year, adding up to 42 days a year. If someone can find ingress and egress from their home interrupted for 42 days a year, is that proportionate?

Cheryl Gillan: Before I reply to that intervention, may I thank my hon. Friend for the helpful advice he gave when he was approached by Buckinghamshire county council to discuss the Bill? His expertise in opposed private business has always been invaluable, as was his contribution to the Bill prior to that.
	I think that closure for 42 days must not be taken in isolation. Do not forget that the council has to consider section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which also applies. That section puts a duty on the council
	“to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic”,
	including providing adequate pedestrian access to people’s homes and taking into account the needs of the disabled. In practice, because the council must give consideration to the provisions of section 122, closure of such duration would be unlikely and would probably not be demanded.
	The provisions of the Bill have the effect of extending, with modifications, the existing powers of the highway authority to close roads for special events. Those powers were brought in specifically to enable a wonderfully successful event—the Tour de France—to be hosted in England for the first time in the 1990s. I am sure we all saw the great success of the recent Tour de France in this country. The relevant provision of the 1984 Act
	also allows closures to facilitate the holding of “a relevant event”, which is defined as
	“any sporting event, social event or entertainment which is held on a road.”
	The council takes the view that, sadly, that does not include film-making. The Bill would have the effect of categorising the making of a film as a relevant event, thereby allowing the council to make the subsequent closure orders.
	The Bill goes a little further than that, in the same way as the Acts for London, Kent and Hertfordshire, by allowing what will be known as “film notices” to be issued where it appears to the council where it is expedient that the closure should come into effect without delay. As I mentioned, that is particularly useful in the film industry because of the unpredictability of our weather. The existing restriction, which allows special events orders to continue in force for up to three days, is altered to allow for seven days for a film order. Similarly, a restriction on the number of orders that can be made in any year on any stretch of road is relaxed to allow for up to six film orders. Under the existing rules, only one special event order can be made per annum, but that number can be increased with the consent of the Secretary of State.
	How will our residents who are affected by this legislation be treated? As I have indicated, whenever the council exercises the powers under the Bill, section 122 of the 1984 Act protects the users of the highway. That, I am sure, is the safeguard we would be looking for, because it requires the council to have regard to the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises.
	As I said, the council has made a commitment to the Department for Transport that it will follow the procedures that it has to follow for temporary street closures under other legislation. I referred to the code of practice for location filming in Buckinghamshire, and I want to give the House a bit more detail on that. It includes, for example, provisions about litter removal, historical or cultural and protected locations, night filming, noise and nuisance, and parking. It also contains a section about residents, including disabled residents, and businesses requiring consultation. The code has recently been updated, as requested by the Chairman of Committees when the Bill was considered in Committee in the Lords. As I understand it, we would be perfectly prepared to place a copy of the draft rules and regulations, and the code, in the House of Commons Library if that was wanted.

Christopher Chope: Does this require consultation with residents associations? Is there any provision to ensure that residents associations can be compensated for the inconvenience that their members encounter? There is a lot of filming in the area where I live, and there is provision for residents associations to receive money from the film company.

Cheryl Gillan: I will place the code and the terms and conditions in the Library so that my hon. Friend can read them, because I am getting to the end of my speech and I want to allow enough time not only for any colleague who wishes to speak but for the Minister to respond.
	In order to understand whether there was support for the proposed Bill, throughout the summer of 2012 the county council held a six-week consultation, and a huge number of bodies were consulted. A total of 19 responses were received. Nine responses were absolutely positive, seven were positive but expressed some concerns which have been addressed, one was neutral, and two were negative. It was considered that none of the concerns raised was significant enough to prevent the promotion of the Bill. Given that no one has objected to the legislation, it is good to see that it is welcomed by the people of Buckinghamshire as much as it has been in Hertfordshire, Kent and London.
	I hope that I have done justice to Buckinghamshire county council in sponsoring this Bill. It is a simple Bill that has precedent. I hope that the House will find favour with it and give it fair passage.

Richard Burden: I thank the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) for the way in which she introduced the Bill. She opened her remarks by saying that she was worried she was going to be the bridesmaid to the main event tonight. I do not think I would ever accuse her of that. Certainly, as regards the encyclopaedic knowledge of the British film industry that she demonstrated, she squashed any suggestions of that absolutely. I was a little worried, I have to say, when she told the House that she had spent an interesting time on the set of a James Bond film. I hope that that was instructive, but I am a little worried about what it involved. If it involved car chases, Beretta pistols or self-defence courses, I, for one, will be watching my step a little more carefully when I say anything at all about HS2 in future.
	I am very pleased that, in commenting on the strength and importance of the UK film industry, the right hon. Lady took the opportunity to say a few words about Richard Attenborough, whose passing is mourned by us all. He was a giant of the UK film industry. Obviously, we on the Labour Benches had a special affection for him, given his politics, but nobody can take away the contribution he made over so many years and we will all miss him.
	As the right hon. Lady has said, the Bill is pretty much identical in logic and purpose to the Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Act 2014, which we debated last November. We understand why it is important for Buckinghamshire to have clarity on rules and regulations, in order for it to be able to sustain and, indeed, to continue to attract the film industry, which, as the right hon. Lady has made clear, is a significant contributor to local jobs and the local economy. It is also a significant contributor to jobs across the country, given the national significance of the UK film industry.
	The Bill enables the council to prohibit or restrict traffic on roads for the purposes of making a film. Those powers are already available to local authorities in London, Kent and Hertfordshire. Like the Hertfordshire Act, this Bill will enable the council to close roads, including, where necessary because of the weather, with only 24 hours’ notice. It aims to deal with unpredictability, which is something that obviously has to be dealt with if we are going to sustain the film industry. After Hertfordshire gained those powers, Buckinghamshire wanted to retain its competitive position as a filming location.
	I understand the concerns that have been expressed today—the same concerns were expressed about the Hertfordshire Act—about the possible impact of sudden road closures on local people and, indeed, on motorists passing through the area. That is why a code of practice is important. I am pleased that one has been agreed and think it would be an excellent idea for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons. I detect no desire from anybody—certainly not from the film companies themselves, the right hon. Lady or the Opposition—to restrict anybody’s rights unnecessarily. For the film industry to survive and prosper, it needs the support and confidence of local people. It would not make sense for any company to ride roughshod over any concerns.
	That is why it is important that we discuss the Bill in a measured way. It is also why the code of practice is so important, and if anything in it needs a bit of tweaking, that can be looked at—that is one of the great things about a code of practice. If we are able to do that, building on the experience in Hertfordshire and elsewhere, this Bill will be a positive contribution enabling the UK film industry in Buckinghamshire and elsewhere to go from strength to strength.

Robert Goodwill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on moving the Second Reading of this private Bill, welcome the opportunity for this debate and endorse the comments that have just been made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). I am very pleased to put the Government’s position on the record, particularly as I have appeared in an Oscar-winning motion picture.

Richard Burden: Tell us more, please!

Robert Goodwill: If the hon. Gentleman watches a film called “The Iron Lady”, which is about one of the greatest ladies ever to have lived on this planet, he will see me playing the part of a Government Whip. That is about as far as my acting goes, but I am in the credits, which counts, as I understand it.
	I want to make it clear from the start that the Government do not oppose the Bill, which largely replicates previous Bills such as the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2008 and the Kent County Council (Filming on Highways) Act 2010, and closely mirrors the Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Act 2014.
	During the passage of the Hertfordshire Bill, we had some initial reservations about the limited procedural protection that it offered to property owners and the travelling public. However, following discussions with Hertfordshire county council, it reassured us that it will follow procedures similar to those set out in the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 when it puts film orders in place. We are grateful to Buckinghamshire county council for agreeing that, to the extent that that there are no mandatory requirements in law, it will also follow the procedures in those regulations.
	My only surprise is that we have not yet had a North Yorkshire county council (Filming on Public Highways) Bill, but I suspect that it is only a matter of time.

Christopher Chope: rose—

Hon. Members: Too late.

Christopher Chope: It is a pity that I was too late to intervene on the Minister, but perhaps he will intervene on me.
	The leader of Buckinghamshire county council, who knew that I had concerns about the Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill, wrote to ask me what I was going to do about the Buckinghamshire Bill. I said that I thought it would be much better if Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire got together to promote a joint Bill, because that would be much less expensive, but Hertfordshire did not want to play ball. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) said on introducing the legislation and as the Minister has just mentioned, there is now a competitiveness issue.

Cheryl Gillan: Perhaps I may tell the Minister that the idea of bringing forward a Bill for the whole country is perfectly sensible, because the issue is important. I appreciate that such locations are not just in Buckinghamshire, although Buckinghamshire is best. The Road Traffic Regulation (Temporary Closure for Filming) Bill, which has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), would cover the whole country, although as a private Member’s Bill it may not get through and as yet no Bill has been published. As there is only one day a year on which a Bill of this nature can be published, Hertfordshire went ahead and published its Bill, so Buckinghamshire had no choice but to publish its own Bill on the due date the following year. That was a long intervention, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her short intervention, but in a sense I am even more disappointed. Why did the Minister not refer to such a private Member’s Bill? It might well deal with the issue by giving all local authorities a power to introduce such provisions without the need to use the private legislation route.

Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend not agree that if we had a Bill covering the whole country that perhaps gave councils the power to preserve outdoor film sets by banning unsightly wind farms, the House might pass it with acclamation?

Christopher Chope: I look forward to supporting my right hon. Friend’s Bill on that topic. I think that there may be a chance to present such a Bill even on Friday if he gives notice of it tomorrow.
	To return to the point about the private Member’s Bill, the Minister did not say whether the Government will support it, which is rather a missed opportunity, if I may put it like that. Whether in relation to pedlars—we know all about such iterative Bills—or filming on highways, it is much better to try to have general legislation to which local authorities can opt in if they wish, without the need to engage in the expensive and often protracted process of private legislation.
	Having said that, because there are no petitions against the Bill, it will go to an unopposed Bill Committee and will not even come back on Report unless the Committee finds some reason to amend it, and it will then go straight through on Third Reading.
	However, that is an expensive process. I hope that by the time the Bill returns for Third Reading we will have more news about the private Member’s Bill to which my right hon. Friend referred. [Interruption.] I see the Minister nodding in agreement. Private Members’ Bills are often rather extensive in ambit, and therefore controversial and difficult to get through, but it sounds as though that Bill will have a narrow ambit. If it is supported by the Government and the Opposition, it could have a fair wind and result in our spending less time looking at private legislation.

Greg Knight: If this Bill goes ahead, is there not a case for giving the council more powers? Clause 6(2) allows it to impose a charge for placing objects on the highway, but only to cover its reasonable expenses. Taking into account my hon. Friend’s earlier point about local community groups, perhaps the council should be given the power to levy a fee that includes a donation to the local community.

Christopher Chope: I am against that, because I do not see why we should burden the blossoming British film industry with additional stealth taxes. However, I support film companies working closely with residents and residents associations and, where appropriate—I think that this is best practice in the industry—making ex gratia payments to compensate them for the inconvenience.
	That happened recently in a street that I am familiar with where a company is shooting a film about the Krays—“Legend” is the working title—which I think will be very popular. The buildings in the ganglands where the Krays operated have long since been demolished, so the company had to find some lookalikes. They came along to the street in question and painted all the houses grey in order to make them look as dingy as they must have done in the 1950s. This is not an advertisement for “Legend”, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I wanted to explain that the film company, in order to ensure that local residents did not feel that they had been taken advantage of, made a donation to the local residents association as well as to individual residents who were particularly inconvenienced. If you would like to speak with me afterwards, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will give you the details of the residents association and the fantastic Christmas parties it can throw as a result of the donations it has received, and not only from that film company, but from many others.
	Mr Deputy Speaker, I can see that you feel that there comes a time when all the points that need to be made have been made. I made many of the points that I would like to have made on this Bill when I spoke to the Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill. In conclusion, I hope that this is the last time we have to deal with the Second Reading of an individual local authority Bill for filming on the highways and that in future they can all be dealt with under delegated legislation.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Opposition spokesman for his support for the Bill, to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has indicated the Government’s support, and to the two hon. Friends who have intervened to make their points gently but who have also been supportive of the Bill. It would be otiose for me to say anything more. Mr Deputy Speaker, that’s a wrap.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Lindsay Hoyle: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 7 to 10 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Representation of the People

That the draft Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (Civil Sanctions) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 5 June, be approved.

Legal Services

That the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) (No. 2) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 23 June, be approved.

Licences and Licensing

That the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 23 June, be approved.

Road Traffic

That the draft Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 19 June, be approved.—(Alun Cairns.)
	Question agreed to.

NORTH WALES POLICE AND ANONYMOUS BLOG SITE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Alun Cairns.)

Guto Bebb: I am pleased to have secured this debate on the relationship between North Wales police and a local anonymous blog site. I suspect that I am not the first or last MP to highlight issues of internet trolling and online harassment, and I suppose there will be further debates of this nature in the House in due course. In this debate I hope to the hear the Government’s views on what police forces should do when complaints are brought to their attention. I will also highlight concerns about the lack of consistency across police forces, where the stated manner of dealing with such issues in the Hertfordshire constabulary, for example, can be contrasted with the manner in which North Wales police have dealt with numerous complaints about a rather vicious and nasty local blog.
	I do not want to detain the House for too long with details of the sordid site in question, but a quick overview of the content will give the House a feel for what we are dealing with. The site is called “Thoughts of Oscar”, and it is probably best described as a small-town poison pen letter blog, with an added interest in politics—mostly local politics, but it has a rather remarkable interest in Welsh Conservatives, wherever they may be located in Wales.
	Over the years the site has harassed, abused, libelled and generally targeted a series of individuals, businesses, council officials and local councillors. All that, as would be expected, has been done behind the cloak of anonymity, while claiming the moral high ground of being the purveyor of free speech. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) said in a previous Adjournment debate:
	“Trolling is not about normal social discourse, or even about disagreeing vehemently with someone who has a contrary opinion. The test should be quite simple: would someone be happy to put their name to what they have said under a false identity?”—[Official Report, 17 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 758.]
	I will describe that as the Liverpool Walton Test on trolling.
	There are circumstances under which free speech and protection of an individual from identification is both right and proper. However, I would be hard pressed to argue that such protection is justified to protect the identity of the authors of a website that runs a vicious campaign against a councillor who has breached planning rules on double glazing, or a food vendor who found themselves under such vicious assault that even the reputation and integrity of their deceased family members were called into question. Such harassment of individuals in the public domain is an electronic replication of the poison pen letter of old, and has nothing to do with the principle of free speech.
	Such articles were the staple of this rather sad and bitter website, which in my view fits perfectly with what I have described as the Liverpool Walton test. If the authors want to be anonymous, what are they ashamed of? Is it the power to put others through a degree of mental anguish and concern that gives them a kick?
	Despite being MP for Aberconwy since 2010 and knowing of this site since before then, I have attempted to ignore the blog as far as I could. On occasion the authors have been complimentary about me, but more often than not I have been attacked. Such attacks, on the whole, need to be expected and accepted by a politician as part and parcel of the decision to become a public figure. Councillors are also, to an extent, in the same position—indeed, even the family home of the Deputy Speaker has been subject to online comments.
	However, the attacks made by this site against my colleague, Assembly Member for Clwyd West, Darren Miller, and subsequent vitriolic attacks on my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), which included despicable comments about his cancer treatment, were rather too much in my view for even a politician to accept, although accept it they did. To have the skin of an elephant is apparently part of the job description for any politician these days.
	For me the turning point came this summer when the site published a number of libels against me that were picked up by the press in Wales and by other websites. My inbox was flooded with abuse and accusations of a very serious nature. Emotions were high because the original article referred to my position on the Israel-Hamas conflict and as such some of the e-mails received were of the “we know where you live” variety. All e-mails referred to the article printed by this anonymous website.
	With five children at home, I had no choice but to contact North Wales police to highlight my concerns and to seek advice on the precautions I should take. I would like to pay tribute to Chief Inspector Moses from North Wales police for his calm and assured support, which allowed me to reassure my family. In addition to taking such precautions, I had to engage a solicitor to highlight where the claims were inaccurate, but legal action was impossible. How can anyone sue an anonymous website? It should also be noted that despite the legal letter highlighting the libellous inaccuracies, neither Google, the site owners, nor Twitter, which hosts the Twitter account, were co-operative.
	I was therefore left with no means of redress. However, what I had not counted upon was my constituents. As the vitriol on the site increased, a number of individuals came independently to my office to highlight their concerns about their treatment at the hands of this website. It became apparent that constituents, councillors, small business owners and residents, after being harassed and abused online, had taken their complaints to North Wales police. All had been told that nothing could be done and that the police could take no action. I find that response surprising.
	Online trolling has become a key issue for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service, and they and other law enforcement agencies have highlighted guidelines on how such issues should be dealt with. Perhaps the best of these is the guide to online abuse and harassment published by the Hertfordshire Constabulary. It appears to be a guide that has not been read by North Wales police, where an Inspector Verberg, now a member of the professional standards team, is reported to have told no fewer than four constituents that nothing could be done about online trolling, harassment or abuse, which is the daily staple of this blog. He was wrong.
	As numerous debates in the House have highlighted, there is plenty of legislation on the statute book that could be used to protect victims from such harassment—for example, the Telecommunications Act 1984, section 4(a) of the Public Order Act 1986, the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. These are all options for the victim and should be understood as such by the police. In view of the failure of North Wales police to investigate my constituents’ claims, does the Minister believe that the Home Office guidance is sufficiently clear? Does the fault lie with the North Wales police?
	Although the lack of action by North Wales police is a significant failure, two further meetings at my constituency office resulted in much more serious questions being raised. Two constituents, both local businesses, came to see me with evidence collected on their behalf by a private investigator. Both had been subject to a significant amount of online abuse and harassment from the blog in question, and their complaints to the police had been met with the same response as previous complaints: “It’s nothing to do with us”. They therefore decided in 2012 to hire a private investigator who, utilising IT skills that I do not understand let alone could explain, traced pictures and other content on the blog to a domestic dwelling in Deganwy and a solicitors practice in Trinity square, Llandudno. Three names were identified as a result of his work.
	The private investigation company, Lewis Legal, is a north Wales-based civil and criminal evidence-gathering service that numbers among its clients local authorities in North Wales and which has worked with and for some police forces. I met Mr Michael Naughton from the company to discuss the names mentioned in his report and the nature of the evidence gathered. On a scale of one to 10, with one being “no confidence” and 10 being “absolute confidence”, I asked him how certain he was that a Mr Nigel Roberts, a local business man, and Mr Dylan Moore, a solicitor at David Jones and Company, were involved. In both cases, he stated that he would rate both names as a 10 and would be confident in his evidence in any court of law. Indeed, this morning, I received an e-mail from Mr Nigel Roberts confirming his involvement with the blog site in question. The third name mentioned was classed as being rated at eight on a scale of one to 10 and despite parliamentary privilege, I do not intend to name this individual.
	The names in question were not a huge surprise to me since a local journalist had previously provided me with the same names, but had not furnished me with any supporting evidence. I did, however, highlight these issues with the Whips Office some two years ago since Mr Dylan Moore is the business partner of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones). I want to reassure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have informed my right hon. Friend that I would be mentioning this connection in passing.
	What disturbed me about the statement made by Mr Naughton was that within 20 minutes of visiting the premises of Mr Dylan Moore and Mr Nigel Roberts, identifying himself as a private investigator and explaining his interest in the blog site—he was told to leave on both occasions and promptly did so, leaving a business card—he received a phone call from a Superintendent Humphreys
	of North Wales police, asking why he had visited both premises. When the nature of the inquiry was explained, he was told in a friendly but clear manner that the blog in question was being monitored and he should leave it to the police.
	I think that the whole House will be intrigued by the contrast between the quick response of the North Wales police to a perfectly legal visit by a registered investigator to two premises in my constituency and the complete lack of interest shown in supporting constituents who brought reasonable complaints about harassments and online abuse to the same police force. To be perfectly honest, there are victims of actual crimes in my constituency who would be pleased to receive a police visit on the day they contacted the police force, let alone a call within 20 minutes by a superintendent.
	My final point is that evidence received yesterday by another constituent would indicate that the North Wales police are well aware of the names of the people behind this blog. Mr Michael Creamer, a constituent and by his own admission no angel, visited my office yesterday. He was convicted and sentenced to four years for his part in a mortgage fraud. During his trial at Mold Crown court, material that appeared on this “Thoughts of Oscar” website about him was serious enough to potentially prejudice the trial. According to a written statement provided to me by Mr Creamer, the presiding judge, Judge John Rogers requested assurances from North Wales police that the material published would be removed and that no other material would be published during the trial. Within two hours, DC Kenyon of North Wales police provided such assurances to the judge under oath, and the trial continued.
	This raises a significant question for North Wales police. If, during a Crown court case back in October 2010, North Wales police were able to speak to, and receive assurances from, the authors of this website within two hours that no further comments would be made, why have they been so unwilling to support my constituents who have brought legitimate concerns about online abuse, trolling and harassment to their door? When this question is coupled with the rather bizarre speed at which North Wales police responded to a call from two of those named as being involved with this site after a visit from an investigator, it is in my view clear that North Wales police have significant questions to answer.
	This debate has highlighted two important issues. First, what powers are available to the police to deal with the harassment and abuse that my constituents have suffered at the hands of those hiding behind a veil of secrecy that an online blog affords them? Are those powers sufficient? Are they simple enough for victims to understand and, for that matter, are they clear enough for police officers even at inspector level to understand? Can the Minister offer me assurances that the failures I have highlighted in north Wales are not a result of a lack of clarity from the Home Office, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service? It is, I think, important to identify whether this is a north Wales problem or a wider issue that needs to be looked at.
	Secondly, and even more concerning, is the fact that I have many constituents who are now adamant that the reason why the police in north Wales did nothing was that this site was being afforded a degree of protection.
	I would be distraught if that was the case. I am a supporter of the North Wales police service and I know that officers across north Wales do an important job in difficult circumstances and are available at all times. However, there are in my view clear questions that demand a response from the police and crime commissioner for north Wales and the chief constable. The oft-stated claim that the North Wales police force had no evidence as to the authors of the blog and could offer no support to the victims can be contrasted with their ability to obtain, within two hours, assurances in regard to any future postings that might prejudice a Crown court trial.
	It is my view that the question of collusion is left hanging over this entire sordid affair.

Michael Penning: It is a privilege and an honour for me to take this first opportunity to respond to a debate as the new policing Minister. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing a debate that concerns an enormously important issue. As he knows, there are aspects of that issue on which I can comment openly, and others in regard to which I am subject to a degree of restriction.
	The part of Wales that my hon. Friend represents is so beautiful, and so brilliantly represented by him, that some of my constituents continue to leave my constituency for the area around Conwy. Indeed, some of my friends have retired there. My friends are still my friends, but I am envious of those who have gone to my hon. Friend’s constituency, and envious of the fact that he represents them and I do not. That must indeed be a very beautiful part of the world. I also know that my hon. Friend is enormously popular there. The fact that his constituents stood up and spoke out against the accusations that were made about him shows what a fantastic constituency Member of Parliament he is. If only more constituents recognised the hard work and dedication of MPs, perhaps we would have a better reputation around the country.
	Let me add, Mr Deputy Speaker, that no matter what the job is—whether you are a Member of Parliament, a member of the Government, a doctor, a nurse or a policeman—no one has the right to level pernicious accusations against you. No one has the right to threaten your family, no one has the right to “troll” you, and no one has the right to create the atmosphere that has clearly been created in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
	My hon. Friend raised several questions in his short speech. The best news that I have heard today is that the site is now down, and is no longer operating. Let us hope that continues to be the case—not least, perhaps, as a result of some of the comments that I am about to make.
	Let me also take my first opportunity as policing Minister to praise the police throughout this great country of ours, both in the devolved parts of our Union and in England and Wales. The fact is that 99.9% of the police do a fantastic job for us day in, day out, on 365 days of the year. I think that more politicians should stand up and say the sort of things that my hon. Friend has said today, although he is obviously concerned about the actions of some—and it is always the “some” whom we talk about: those who have let us down, let
	themselves down or let their forces down, rather than the vast majority who, as I have said, do such a fantastic job for us day in, day out.
	My hon. Friend asked me whether harassment, or “trolling”, was an offence. It is, and there are myriad pieces of legislation to deal with it, including those to which my hon. Friend referred on the basis of his research. We have the Defamation Act 2013, the Communications Act 2003, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Malicious Communications Act 1998, to name but a few. It is therefore probably inaccurate to say that nothing can be done should evidence be there—although I stress that it is up to the police to conduct their investigations and to decide whether a criminal act has taken place—and I can answer one of my hon. Friend’s most forthright questions by saying “Yes, the legislation is there, on the statute book.”
	Let me now turn to the guidance that is provided for the police, and the question of whether the way in which it is used in north Wales is different from the way in which it is used in other parts of the country. I do not know exactly how it is being interpreted in north Wales, but it is being interpreted around the country, and prosecutions have taken place, and continue to take place, on the basis of the guidance that has been issued to police authorities. A lead chief constable is responsible for these matters through the Association of Chief Police Officers. It is clear to me that, if prosecutions are taking place in other parts of the country—I personally have not seen anything like this in my constituency; I have come close but not anything like what has been described today—I would expect, as a constituency MP, the police to do a full investigation in my constituency, and in any other part of our great nation.
	To answer directly again the question: is the guidance in place? Yes it is. Do I as the Minister for Policing feel that that guidance is robust and simple and has been explained? Yes I do, clearly, as other forces are ensuring that it is being used in that way. Nothing is perfect and I am sure that we can find other examples around the country where people think a prosecution should have taken place and it has not. We are not in a perfect world. It is not for politicians, rightly, to tell the police what they should and should not do. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions are involved in the ongoing discussions that we have on this area. Online jurisdiction and what can and cannot be used is a very difficult issue.
	I always do this when I stand at Dispatch Box. I am now in my fifth role in this Parliament so I must be doing something wrong. I think I have broken all records—five Departments in four years in one Parliament. I try to stand here sometimes and think to myself, “What would I think if I were the constituency MP who had raised this issue today?” First, I would be on the Back Benches raising the issue in an Adjournment debate. It is absolutely right and proper that this issue has been brought to the House this evening. What would I do? I would be complaining on behalf of my constituents and of myself; my hon. Friend represents himself in his constituency as the MP for that constituency. I would make a formal complaint with my concerns to the chief constable in North Wales.
	I know that sounds complicated sometimes. Often constituents say to me and the Department, “You are complaining to the people who you think have done
	something wrong.” That is right. It is right and proper that, if mistakes have been made and concerns exist, any force, whether that be the police force or the local health authority, has the opportunity to address the concerns of our constituents. If we are not happy, in this particular case, it should go to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. That is, in my opinion, where this should go, if my hon. Friend is not happy, and clearly he is not, with the response that he has had from North Wales.
	It would be difficult for me to go further than that because the Independent Police Complaints Commission is what it says on the tin—independent. I have met the chairman and chief executive only in the last couple of
	days, naturally. Although we have a review on the ongoing role of the IPCC and what sort of complaints it should deal with, in my opinion, that is exactly where this complaint should be going.
	To sum up, I am really sad that my hon. Friend has had to raise the issue. He has done the right thing in doing so. It is a tiny minority of police in this country who cause problems. If that is the case in North Wales, and it has not been addressed by the correct complaints procedure, my hon. Friend has the right and should take it to the IPCC.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.